Average    Average    Average    Percentile   Average    Average    Average    percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2055........................................................    $39,000    $46,000    $50,000      $68,000    $28,000    $33,000    $36,000      $49,000
PV, 3%......................................................    260,000    320,000    370,000      500,000    180,000    230,000    260,000      360,000
PV, 7%......................................................    120,000    180,000    230,000      360,000     86,000    130,000    170,000      260,000
EAV, 3%.....................................................     14,000     17,000     19,000       26,000      9,800     12,000     13,000       19,000
EAV, 7%.....................................................      9,300     12,000     14,000       22,000      6,800      9,000     10,000       16,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Climate benefits are based on changes (reductions) in CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions and are calculated using four different estimates of the social
  cost of carbon (SC-CO2), the social cost of methane (SC-CH4), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent,
  and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate). The 95th perncentile estimate was included to provide information on
  potentially higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change, conditional on the 3 percent estimate of the discount rate. We emphasize the
  importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O estimates. As discussed in the Technical Support
  Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (IWG 2021), a consideration of climate
  benefits calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2 percent and lower, are also warranted when discounting intergenerational
  impacts. The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate present
  value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency, while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent. Annual costs and
  benefits in 2055 are undiscounted values. Note that the benefits attributable to reductions in non-GHG pollutants associated with the standards
  included here do not include the full complement of health and environmental effects that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
  monetized benefits. Instead, the non-GHG pollutant benefits are based on benefit-per-ton values that reflect only human health impacts associated with
  reductions in PM2.5 exposure. For the purposes of presentational clarity in the calculation of net benefits, PM2.5-related benefits are averaged
  across the range of alternative estimates for 2055. For PV and EAV estimated with a 3% discount rate, we calculate net benefits using PM2.5-related
  benefits based on the Pope III et al., 2019 study of premature mortality. For PV and EAV estimated with a 7% discount rate, net benefits reflect PM2.5-
  related benefits based on the Wu et al., 2020 study.

    We summarize the vehicle costs, operational savings, and benefits
of the proposal, as shown in Table VIII-7. Table VIII-7 presents the
proposal's costs from Table VIII-1, operating savings from Table VIII-
2, benefits from Table VIII-3 through Table VIII-5, and net benefits
from Table VIII-6 in a single table.

             Table VIII-7--Summary of Vehicle Costs, Operating Savings, and Benefits of the Proposal
                                           [Billions of 2021 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      CY 2055         PV, 3%          PV, 7%          EAV, 3%         EAV, 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Technology Package RPE..           -$1.5              $9             $10           $0.47           $0.82
EVSE RPE........................             2.9              47              29             2.5             2.3
Sum of Vehicle Costs............            1.40              56              39             2.9             3.2
Pre-tax Fuel Savings............               4              28              14             1.4             1.1
Diesel Exhaust Fluid Savings....             2.3              22              11             1.1             0.9
Repair & Maintenance Savings....              24             200              99              10               8
Sum of Operating Savings........              31             250             120              13              10
Energy Security Benefits........             1.3              12             6.0            0.62            0.49
Climate Benefits: \a\
    5% Average..................             4.4              22              22             1.4             1.4
    3% Average..................              11              87              87             4.6             4.6
    2.5% Average................              15             130             130             6.5             6.5
    3% 95th Percentile..........              33             260             260              14              14
Criteria Air Pollutant Benefits:
 \b\
    PM2.5 Health Benefits--Wu et         2.4-2.7              15             5.8            0.78            0.47
     al., 2020..................
    PM2.5 Health Benefits--Pope          4.6-5.2              29            11.0             1.5            0.91
     III et al., 2019...........
Net Benefits: \a\ \c\
    With Climate 5% Average.....              39             260             120              14             9.3
    With Climate 3% Average.....              46             320             180              17              12
    With Climate 2.5% Average...              50             370             230              19              14
    With Climate 3% 95th                      68             500             360              26              22
     Percentile.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
  percent) is used to calculate present and equivalent annualized values of SC-GHGs for internal consistency,
  while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3% or 7%.
\b\ PM2.5-related health benefits are presented based on two different long-term exposure studies of mortality
  risk: a Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and a National Health Interview Survey study (Pope III et al., 2019).
  The benefits associated with the standards presented here do not include health benefits associated with
  reduced criteria pollutant emissions from refineries. The benefits in this table also do not include the full
  complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized, would increase the total
  monetized benefits. The range of benefits in CY2055 are estimated using either a 3% or 7% discount rate to
  account for avoided health outcomes that are expected to accrue over more than a single year.
\c\ For criteria pollutant benefits included in the calculation of net benefits, PM2.5-related benefits are
  averaged across the range of estimates in CY2055. For presentational clarity, the present and equivalent
  annualized value of net benefits for a 3% discount rate reflect benefits based on the Pope III et al. study
  while the present and equivalent annualized value of net benefits for a 7% discount rate reflect benefits
  based on the Wu et al. study.

    We have also estimated the total transfers associated with the
proposed CO2 emission standards, as shown in Table VIII-8.
The transfers consist of the IRA battery tax credit and vehicle tax
credit and fuel taxes. None of these are included in the prior tables
(i.e., Table VIII-1, Table VIII-2, and Table VIII-6) in this section's
comparison of benefits and costs.

                                        Table VIII-8--Transfers Associated With the Proposal and the Alternative
                                                               [Millions of 2021 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Proposal                                                 Alternative
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Battery tax     Vehicle tax                               Battery tax     Vehicle tax
                                          credits         credits      Fuel taxes      Sum          credits         credits      Fuel taxes      Sum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2055................................              $0              $0       $6,600       $6,600              $0              $0       $4,700       $4,700
PV, 3%..............................           3,300           5,900       69,000       79,000           2,300           3,900       50,000       56,000
PV, 7%..............................           2,900           5,000       37,000       44,000           2,000           3,400       26,000       31,000
EAV, 3%.............................             170             310        3,600        4,100             120             210        2,600        2,900
EAV, 7%.............................             240             410        3,000        3,600             160             270        2,100        2,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Analysis of Alternative CO2 Emission Standards

    As discussed throughout this preamble, in developing this proposal,
EPA considered and is requesting comment on a regulatory alternative
that would establish less stringent CO2 emission standards
and, thus, would result in fewer GHG emission reductions than the
CO2 emission standards we are proposing. This section
presents estimates of technology costs, CO2 emission
reductions, fuel savings, and other impacts associated with the
alternative. We request comment on this analysis for the alternative
set of CO2 standards. See Section II.H for our request for
comment regarding the alternative set of standards than those proposed.
    We also are seeking comment on a more stringent set of emission
standards that would be based on higher ZEV adoption rates on a
national level around the same levels as the adoption rates included in
the California ACT rule, as described in Section II.H.

A. Comparison of Proposal and Alternative

    The alternative represents a slower phase-in option for program
implementation, which represents differences in timing, costs, and
benefits of a HD vehicle CO2 emissions program.
Specifically, the alternative has both a less aggressive phase-in of
CO2 emissions standards from MYs 2027 through 2031 and a
less stringent standard for MYs 2032 and beyond. The alternative was
modeled using the same methodologies used to model the proposal, as
described in Chapters 3 and 4 of the DRIA.
1. Slower Phase-In Alternative
    EPA developed and considered an alternative with a more gradual
phase-in of CO2 emission standards for MYs 2027 through MY
2031 and a less stringent final standard in MY 2032, as discussed in
Section II.H. The ZEV adoption rates associated with level of
stringency for MYs 2027 through 2032 under the slower phase-in
alternative are shown in Table IX-1. The slower phase-in alternative
ZEV adoption rates by regulatory subcategory and by MY are shown in
DRIA Chapter 2.9.5. The slower phase-in alternative standards,
presented in Table IX-2 through Table IX-5, are calculated using the
same method as the proposed standards, as described in Preamble
Sections II.F.2 and II.F.3, using the alternative ZEV adoption rates by
regulatory subcategory.

                           Table IX-1--ZEV Technology Adoption Rates in the Technology Packages Considered for the Alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                MY 2032 and
                                                            MY 2027 (%)     MY 2028 (%)     MY 2029 (%)     MY 2030 (%)     MY 2031 (%)      later (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocational..............................................              14              20              25              30              35              40
Short-Haul Tractors.....................................               5               8              10              15              20              25
Long-Haul Tractors......................................               0               0               0              10              15              20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Table IX-2--Alternative MY 2027 Through 2032+ Vocational Vehicle CO2 Emission Standards
                                                                    [Grams/ton-mile]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                CI medium                                       SI medium
                Model year                           Subcategory          CI light heavy       heavy      CI heavy heavy  SI light heavy       heavy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027......................................  Urban.......................             318             227             244             364             266
                                            Multi-Purpose...............             281             204             205             323             237
                                            Regional....................             242             187             164             270             216
2028......................................  Urban.......................             294             218             239             340             257
                                            Multi-Purpose...............             257             195             200             299             228
                                            Regional....................             218             178             159             246             207
2029......................................  Urban.......................             275             211             235             321             250
                                            Multi-Purpose...............             238             188             196             280             221
                                            Regional....................             199             171             155             227             200
2030......................................  Urban.......................             255             206             212             301             245
                                            Multi-Purpose...............             218             183             173             260             216
                                            Regional....................             179             166             132             207             195
2031......................................  Urban.......................             235             199             205             281             238
                                            Multi-Purpose...............             198             176             166             240             209
                                            Regional....................             159             159             125             187             188
2032 and later............................  Urban.......................             215             192             195             261             231
                                            Multi-Purpose...............             178             169             156             220             202
                                            Regional....................             139             152             115             167             181
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table IX-3--Alternative MY 2027 Through 2032+ Optional Custom Chassis Vocational Vehicle CO2 Emission Standards
                                                                    [Grams/ton-mile]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                MY 2032 and
        Optional custom chassis vehicle category              MY 2027         MY 2028         MY 2029         MY 2030         MY 2031          later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Bus..............................................             214             203             195             190             182             173
Other Bus...............................................             286             269             252             237             223             206
Coach Bus...............................................             205             205             205             185             174             164
Refuse Hauler...........................................             265             253             241             232             221             212
Concrete Mixer..........................................             275             265             256             246             237             228
Motor home..............................................             226             226             226             226             226             226
Mixed-use vehicle.......................................             316             316             316             316             316             316
Emergency vehicle.......................................             319             319             319             319             319             319
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table IX-4--Alternative MY 2027 Through MY 2032+ Tractor CO2 Emission Standards
                                                [Grams/ton-mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Class 7 all     Class 8 day       Class 8
              Model year                       Roof height          cab styles          cab         sleeper cab
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Low Roof................            91.4            69.7            64.1
                                        Mid Roof................            98.2            74.1            69.6
                                        High Roof...............            95.0            71.9            64.3
2028..................................  Low Roof................            88.5            67.5            64.1
                                        Mid Roof................            95.1            71.8            69.6
                                        High Roof...............            92.0            69.6            64.3
2029..................................  Low Roof................            86.6            66.1            64.1
                                        Mid Roof................            93.1            70.2            69.6
                                        High Roof...............            90.0            68.1            64.3
2030..................................  Low Roof................            81.8            62.4            57.7
                                        Mid Roof................            87.9            66.3            62.6
                                        High Roof...............            85.0            64.3            57.9
2031..................................  Low Roof................            77.0            58.7            54.5
                                        Mid Roof................            82.7            62.4            59.2
                                        High Roof...............            80.0            60.6            54.7
2032 and Later........................  Low Roof................            72.2            55.1            51.3
                                        Mid Roof................            77.6            58.5            55.7
                                        High Roof...............            75.0            56.8            51.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table IX-5--Alternative MY 2027 Through MY 2032+ Heavy-Haul Tractor CO2
                           Emission Standards
                            [Grams/ton-mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           CO2 Emission
                                                             standards
                       Model Year                           (grams/ton-
                                                               mile)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027....................................................            48.3
2028....................................................            48.3
2029....................................................            48.3
2030....................................................            44.0
2031....................................................            43.0
2032 and Later..........................................            42.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our current analysis for each of the vocational vehicle
and tractor subcategories, there appear to be technically feasible
emission standards available that provide for greater CO2
emission reductions through the proposed standards than through the
slower phase-in alternative. As explained in section II.H, the proposed
standards are therefore appropriate. Consequently, at this time, EPA
does not believe that the slower phase-in alternative would be
appropriate.
2. Proposed CO2 Emission Standards
    Details regarding MOVES modeling of these proposed standards are
included in Section IV of this preamble and Chapter 4 of the DRIA. The
ZEV adoption rates in the technology packages associated with the
proposed level of stringency for MYs 2027 through 2032 under the
proposal are shown in Table IX-6.

                       Table IX-6--ZEV Technology Adoption Rates in the Technology Packages Considered for the Proposed Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                MY 2032 and
                                                            MY 2027 (%)     MY 2028 (%)     MY 2029 (%)     MY 2030 (%)     MY 2031 (%)        later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocational..............................................              20              25              30              35              40              50
Short-Haul Tractors.....................................              10              12              15              20              30              35
Long-Haul Tractors......................................               0               0               0              10              20              25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bases for each of the proposed CO2 emission
standards by model year and industry segment are discussed more fully
earlier in this preamble Section II and in Chapter 2 of the DRIA.
Section II of this preamble include explanation of how EPA arrived at
the proposed CO2 emission standards, including discussion of
the technologies upon which the CO2 emission standards are
based and why the standards are reasonable in light of these
technologies, based on all of the information available to us at the
time of this proposal.

B. Emission Inventory Comparison of Proposal and Slower Phase-In
Alternative

    Both the proposal and alternative were modeled in MOVES3.R3 by
increasing ZEV adoption in HD vehicles, which means we model the
alternative as displacing fewer HD ICE vehicles than the proposal. In
general, this means the alternative has both lower downstream emission
reductions and lower upstream EGU emission increases when compared to
the proposal. Chapter 4.7 of the DRIA contains more discussion on the
emission impacts of the alternative.
1. Downstream Emission Comparison
    Our estimates of the downstream emission reductions of GHGs that
would result from the alternative, relative to the reference case, are
presented in Table IX-7 for calendar years 2035, 2045, and 2055. Total
GHG emissions, or CO2 equivalent (CO2e), are
calculated by summing all GHG emissions multiplied by their 100-year
Global Warming Potential (GWP).

            Table IX-7--Annual Downstream Heavy-Duty GHG Emission Reductions From the Alternative in Calendar Years (CY) 2035, 2045, and 2055
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                CY 2035 reductions              CY 2045 reductions              CY 2055 reductions
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Pollutant                  100-year GWP   Million metric                  Million metric                  Million metric
                                                               tons         Percent (%)        tons         Percent (%)        tons         Percent (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)....................               1              36               9              73              19              90              22
Methane (CH4)...........................              25           0.003               5           0.011              17           0.022              22
Nitrous Oxide (N2O).....................             298           0.005               9           0.009              17           0.011              20
CO2 Equivalent (CO2e)...................  ..............              38               9              76              19              94              22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our estimated GHG emission reductions for the alternative are lower
than for the proposal (see Section V of the preamble). In 2055, we
estimate that the alternative would reduce emissions of CO2
by 22 percent (the proposal's estimate is 30 percent), methane by 22
percent (the proposal's estimate is 31 percent), and N2O by
20 percent (the proposal's estimate is 28 percent). The resulting total
GHG reduction, in CO2e, is 22 percent for the alternative
versus 30 percent for the proposal.
    The warming impacts of GHGs are cumulative. Table IX-8 presents the
cumulative GHG reductions that would result from the proposed standards
and the alternative in 2055, in billion metric tons (BMT).

 Table IX-8--Cumulative 2027-2055 Downstream Heavy-Duty GHG Emission Reductions From the Proposed Standards and
                                                 the Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Proposal GHG reductions       Alternative GHG reductions
                    Pollutant                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        BMT         Percent (%)         BMT         Percent (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)............................             2.2              18             1.6              13
Methane (CH4)...................................         0.00035              17         0.00025              12
Nitrous Oxide (N2O).............................         0.00028              17          0.0002              12
CO2 Equivalent (CO2e)...........................             2.3              18             1.6              13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with Table IX-7, the cumulative GHG emission reductions
are smaller for the alternative than the proposal.
    We anticipate an increase in the use of zero-emission technologies
to meet the CO2 emission standards for both the proposal and
the alternative. Therefore, we also expect downstream emission
reductions for criteria pollutants and air toxics would result from the
alternative, as presented in Table IX-9.

 Table IX-9--Annual Downstream HD Criteria Pollutant and Air Toxic Emission Reductions From the Alternative in Calendar Years (CYs) 2035, 2045, and 2055
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                CY 2035 reductions              CY 2045 reductions              CY 2055 reductions
                        Pollutant                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             U.S. tons      Percent (%)      U.S. tons      Percent (%)      U.S. tons      Percent (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)...................................          11,471               3          40,460              15          51,027              20
Primary Exhaust PM2.5...................................             199               5             501              22             701              28
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)........................           4,438               8          10,366              21          15,139              27
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)....................................             147              10             298              19             373              23
Carbon Monoxide (CO)....................................          70,292               8         176,283              20         252,482              25
1,3-Butadiene...........................................              14              17              35              34              50              38
Acetaldehyde............................................              91               8             216              22             326              26
Benzene.................................................              82              13             208              30             302              36
Formaldehyde............................................              61               6             157              20             258              24
Naphthalene \a\.........................................               5               7              11              28              16              33
Ethylbenzene............................................              52               9             128              22             195              30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Naphthalene includes both gas and particle phase emissions.

    Once again, the emission reductions in criteria pollutants and air
toxics that would result from the alternative are smaller than those
that would result from the proposal. For example, in 2055, we estimate
the alternative would reduce NOX emissions by 20 percent,
PM2.5 emissions by 28 percent, and VOC emissions by 27
percent. This is compared to the proposal's reductions of
NOX by 28 percent, PM2.5 by 39 percent, and VOC
by 37 percent for the proposal. Reductions in emissions for air toxics
from the alternative range from 24 percent for formaldehyde (the
proposal's estimate is 33 percent) to 38 percent for 1,3-butadiene (the
proposal's estimate is 51 percent).

2. Upstream Emission Comparison
    Our estimates of the additional CO2 emissions from EGUs
due to the proposed standards, relative to the reference case, are
presented in Table IX-10 for calendar years 2035, 2045, and 2055.

Table IX-10--Annual Upstream EGU CO2 Emission Increases From the Alternative in Calendar Years (CYs) 2035, 2045,
                                                    and 2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Additional EGU emissions (million metric tons)
                            Pollutant                            -----------------------------------------------
                                                                      CY 2035         CY 2045         CY 2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)............................................              15              12               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2055, we estimate the alternative would increase EGU emissions
of CO2 by 8 million metric tons, compared to 11 million
metric tons from the proposal. The EGU impacts decrease over time
because of projected changes in the power generation mix.
    In Table IX-11, we present the cumulative CO2 increases
from EGUs that we expect would result from the proposal and
alternative, measured in billion metric tons (BMT).

 Table IX-11--Cumulative 2027-2055 EGU CO2 Emission Increases Reflecting
               the Proposed and Alternative GHG Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            EGU CO2 emissions increase
                                                       (BMT)
                Pollutant                -------------------------------
                                             Proposal       Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)....................             0.4             0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the alternative would result in 0.3 billion metric tons
of increased CO2 emissions from EGUs, compared to 0.4
billion metric tons from the proposal.
    Table IX-12 contains our estimates of EGU emission increases from
the alternative for some criteria pollutants. In general, we expect the
EGU emissions increases from the alternative to be 20 to 30 percent
smaller than for the proposal.

Table IX-12--Annual Criteria Pollutant Emission Increases From EGUs From the Alternative in Calendar Years (CYs)
                                              2035, 2045, and 2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Additional EGU emissions (U.S. tons)
                            Pollutant                            -----------------------------------------------
                                                                      CY 2035         CY 2045         CY 2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)...........................................           2,054           1,625             575
Primary PM2.5...................................................             885             761             549
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)................................             458             563             551
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)............................................           7,235           1,863             666
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to downstream and EGU emissions impacts, we also
estimated impacts on select criteria pollutant emissions from
refineries for calendar year 2055. This analysis assumes that the
reduction in demand for liquid fuels would lead to reduced activity and
emissions at refineries. The results are presented in Table IX-13.
Additional detail on the refinery analysis is available in Chapter
4.3.3 of the DRIA.

Table IX-13--Criteria Pollutant Emission Reductions From Refineries From
                  the Proposal and Alternative in 2055
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             CY 2055 refinery emission
                                              reductions (U.S. tons)
                Pollutant                -------------------------------
                                             Proposal       Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................           1,785           1,298
PM2.5...................................             436             318
VOC.....................................           1,227             894
SO2.....................................             642             468
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the downstream emission reductions and the EGU emission
increases, the refinery emission impacts of the alternative are 20 to
30 percent smaller than the proposal.
3. Comparison of Net Emissions Impacts
    While we present a net emissions impact of the alternative
CO2 emission standards, it is important to note that some
upstream emission sources are not included in the analysis. Although we
expect the alternative to reduce demand for refined fuels, we did not
quantify emissions changes associated with producing or extracting
crude or transporting crude or refined fuels. Also, because our
analysis of refinery emissions only included select criteria
pollutants, refinery emission impacts are therefore included in net
criteria emission impacts for 2055 but not net CO2 emission
impacts. Therefore, this analysis likely underestimates the net
emissions reductions that may result from the alternative.
    Table IX-14 shows a summary of our modeled downstream, upstream,
and net CO2 emission impacts of the alternative relative to
the reference case, in million metric tons, for calendar years 2035,
2045, and 2055.

                                       Table IX-14--Annual Net CO2 Emission Impacts \a\ From the Alternative in Calendar Years (CYs) 2035, 2045, and 2055
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               CY 2035 impacts (MMT)                           CY 2045 impacts (MMT)                           CY 2055 impacts (MMT)
                    Pollutant                    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Downstream          EGU             Net         Downstream          EGU             Net         Downstream          EGU             Net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2.............................................             -36              15             -22             -73              12             -62             -90               8             -82
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ We present emissions reductions as negative numbers and emission increases as positive numbers.

    In 2055, we estimate the alternative would result in a net decrease
of 82 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. The net
reduction for the proposal is 114 million metric tons. The net
decreases become larger between 2035 and 2055 as we project the HD
fleet to turn over and the power grid to use less fossil fuels.
    In Table IX-15, we present the cumulative net CO2
emissions impact that we expect would result from the proposed
standards and the alternative, in billion metric tons (BMT). Overall,
we expect downstream reduction in CO2 emissions to be far
larger than upstream increases from EGUs, and we expect the alternative
would result in a net reduction of 1.3 billion metric tons from CYs
2027 to 2055. This is about 28 percent less than the 1.8 billion metric
tons of cumulative CO2 emissions reductions we expect from
the proposal.

                               Table IX-15--Cumulative 2027-2055 EGU CO2 Emission Impacts \a\ (in BMT) of the Alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Proposal                                       Alterative
                        Pollutant                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Downstream          EGU             Net         Downstream          EGU             Net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)....................................            -2.2             0.4             1.8            -1.6             0.3             1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ We present emissions reductions as negative numbers and emission increases as positive numbers.

    Table IX-16 contains a summary of the modeled net impacts of the
alternative CO2 emission standards on criteria pollutant
emissions considering downstream and EGUs, relative to the reference
case for calendar years 2035 and 2045. Table IX-17 contains a similar
summary for calendar year 2055 that includes estimates of net impacts
of refinery, EGU, and downstream emissions.

             Table IX-16--Annual Net Impacts \a\ on Criteria Pollutant Emissions From the Alternative in Calendar Years (CYs) 2035 and 2045
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    CY 2035 impacts (U.S. tons)                     CY 2045 impacts (U.S. tons)
                        Pollutant                        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Downstream          EGU             Net         Downstream          EGU             Net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................................         -11,471           2,054          -9,417         -40,460           1,625         -38,836
PM2.5...................................................            -199             885             687            -501             761             260
VOC.....................................................          -4,438             458          -3,980         -10,366             563          -9,802
SO2.....................................................            -147           7,235           7,088            -298           1,863           1,565
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ We present emissions reductions as negative numbers and emission increases as positive numbers.

          Table IX-17--Net Impacts \a\ on Criteria Pollutant Emissions From the Alternative in CY 2055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    CY 2055 impacts (U.S. tons)
                    Pollutant                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Downstream          EGU          Refinery           Net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.............................................         -51,027             575          -1,298         -51,750
PM2.5...........................................            -701             549            -318            -471
VOC.............................................         -15,139             551            -894         -15,482
SO2.............................................            -373             666            -468            -175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ We present emissions reductions as negative numbers and emission increases as positive numbers.

    By 2055, when considering downstream, EGU, and refinery emissions,
we estimate a net decrease in emissions from all pollutants modeled
(i.e., NOX, PM2.5, VOC, and SO2). In
earlier years, when considering only downstream and EGU emissions, we
estimate net decreases of NOX and VOC emissions, but net
increases of PM2.5 and SO2 emissions. These
increases become smaller over time. All net emission impacts for the
alternative, whether they are positive or negative, are smaller in
magnitude than for the proposal.

C. Program Costs Comparison of Proposal and Alternative

    Using the cost elements outlined in Sections IV.B, IV.C, and IV.D,
we have estimated the costs associated with the proposal and
alternative relative to the reference case, as shown in Table IX-18.
Costs are presented in more detail in Chapter 3 of the DRIA. As noted
earlier, costs are presented in 2021 dollars in undiscounted annual
values along with net present values at both 3- and 7-percent discount
rates with values discounted to the 2027 calendar year.
    As shown in Table IX-18, our analysis shows that the proposal
scenario would have the lowest cost.

    Table IX-18--Total Technology, Operating Cost and EVSE Cost Impacts of the Proposed Option Relative to the Reference Case and the Alternative Option Relative to the Reference Case, All
                                                                                Regulatory Classes and All Fuels,
                                                                                [Millions of 2021 dollars] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Proposal                                                       Alternative
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Calendar year                                Total           Total                                           Total           Total
                                                                    technology       operating      Total EVSE     Total program    technology       operating      Total EVSE     Total program
                                                                       costs           costs           costs           cost            costs           costs           costs           cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027............................................................          $2,000           -$330          $1,300          $3,000            $920           -$180            $710          $1,400
2028............................................................           1,800            -790           1,600           2,500           1,100            -490           1,100           1,600
2029............................................................           1,700          -1,400           1,900           2,200           1,000            -920           1,300           1,400
2030............................................................           2,000          -2,100           2,000           1,900           1,400          -1,400           1,500           1,400
2031............................................................           2,300          -2,800           2,200           1,700           1,400          -2,000           1,700           1,100
2032............................................................           2,000          -3,800           2,600             860           1,400          -2,700           1,900             510
2033............................................................           1,500          -4,900           2,600            -820             960          -3,500           1,800            -710
2034............................................................           1,300          -6,100           2,600          -2,200             810          -4,300           1,800          -1,700
2035............................................................           1,000          -7,400           2,500          -3,800             620          -5,200           1,700          -2,900
2036............................................................             750          -8,700           2,500          -5,500             440          -6,200           1,700          -4,000
2037............................................................             620         -10,000           2,500          -7,000             350          -7,200           1,700          -5,100
2038............................................................             410         -12,000           2,500          -8,700             200          -8,200           1,700          -6,300
2039............................................................             220         -13,000           2,600         -10,000              70          -9,100           1,800          -7,300
2040............................................................             140         -14,000           2,600         -12,000               9         -10,000           1,800          -8,400
2041............................................................             -40         -16,000           2,600         -13,000            -120         -11,000           1,800          -9,400
2042............................................................            -200         -17,000           2,600         -15,000            -230         -12,000           1,800         -10,000
2043............................................................            -360         -18,000           2,700         -16,000            -340         -13,000           1,800         -12,000
2044............................................................            -410         -20,000           2,700         -18,000            -370         -14,000           1,900         -13,000
2045............................................................            -550         -21,000           2,700         -19,000            -480         -15,000           1,900         -13,000
2046............................................................            -690         -22,000           2,700         -20,000            -570         -16,000           1,900         -14,000
2047............................................................            -820         -23,000           2,700         -22,000            -670         -17,000           1,900         -15,000
2048............................................................            -850         -24,000           2,700         -22,000            -680         -17,000           1,900         -16,000
2049............................................................            -970         -25,000           2,800         -23,000            -770         -18,000           1,900         -17,000
2050............................................................          -1,100         -26,000           2,800         -24,000            -850         -18,000           1,900         -17,000
2051............................................................          -1,100         -27,000           2,800         -25,000            -860         -19,000           2,000         -18,000
2052............................................................          -1,200         -28,000           2,900         -26,000            -940         -20,000           2,000         -19,000
2053............................................................          -1,300         -29,000           2,900         -27,000          -1,000         -21,000           2,000         -20,000
2054............................................................          -1,400         -30,000           2,900         -28,000          -1,100         -21,000           2,000         -20,000
2055............................................................          -1,500         -31,000           2,900         -29,000          -1,200         -22,000           2,100         -21,000
PV, 3%..........................................................           9,000        -250,000          47,000        -190,000           4,000        -180,000          33,000        -140,000
PV, 7%..........................................................          10,000        -120,000          29,000         -85,000           5,400         -87,000          20,000         -62,000
EAV, 3%.........................................................             470         -13,000           2,500         -10,000             210          -9,100           1,700          -7,200
EAV, 7%.........................................................             820         -10,000           2,300          -6,900             440          -7,100           1,600          -5,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values show 2 significant digits; negative cost values denote savings; calendar year values are undiscounted, present values are discounted to 2027. Program Cost is the sum of Total Tech
  Cost, Total Operating Cost, and total EVSE costs.

D. Benefits

1. Social Cost of GHGs
    Our estimates of the climate benefits from the GHG emissions
reductions associated with the alternative are similar to those
discussed for the proposal in Section VII of this preamble. Table IX-19
presents the estimated annual, undiscounted climate benefits (i.e.,
total GHG benefits), and consequently the annual quantified benefits
(i.e., total GHG benefits), for each of the four interim social cost of
GHG (SC-GHG) values estimated by the Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases \1007\ for the years beginning with the
first year of rule implementation, 2027, through 2055 for the proposed
program. Also shown are the present values and equivalent annualized
values associated with each of the four interim SC-GHG values. For more
detailed information about the climate benefits analysis conducted for
the proposed and alternative programs, please refer to Section 7.1 of
the draft RIA. Our analysis includes CO2 emission increases
from EGUs (see Section V and Section IX.B); however, it does not
include upstream emissions impacts associated with liquid fuel
refining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1007\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.

                              Table IX-19--Climate Benefits from Reduction in GHG Emissions Associated with the Proposal and Alternative, Millions of 2021 Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Proposal                                                       Alternative
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Calendar year                                Total           Total                                           Total           Total
                                                                    technology       operating      Total EVSE     Total program    technology       operating      Total EVSE     Total program
                                                                       costs           costs           costs           cost            costs           costs           costs           cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average......................................................      3% Average    2.5% Average         3% 95th      5% Average      3% Average    2.5% Average         3% 95th
                                                                                Percentile                                                      Percentile
2027............................................................              33            $110            $160            $320             $17             $57             $83            $170
2028............................................................              74             240             350             710              45             140             210             430
2029............................................................             120             400             580           1,200              80             250             370             760
2030............................................................             190             610             880           1,800             130             420             610           1,300
2031............................................................             290             900           1,300           2,700             200             630             910           1,900
2032............................................................             410           1,300           1,800           3,800             290             890           1,300           2,700
2033............................................................             530           1,600           2,300           4,900             380           1,200           1,700           3,500
2034............................................................             660           2,000           2,800           6,000             470           1,400           2,000           4,300
2035............................................................             780           2,300           3,300           7,100             550           1,700           2,400           5,000
2036............................................................             940           2,800           4,000           8,500             670           2,000           2,800           6,000
2037............................................................           1,100           3,300           4,700           9,900             790           2,300           3,300           7,100
2038............................................................           1,300           3,800           5,400          12,000             920           2,700           3,800           8,200
2039............................................................           1,500           4,300           6,100          13,000           1,100           3,100           4,400           9,400
2040............................................................           1,700           4,900           6,900          15,000           1,200           3,500           4,900          11,000
2041............................................................           1,900           5,400           7,600          16,000           1,400           3,900           5,400          12,000
2042............................................................           2,100           5,900           8,300          18,000           1,500           4,200           5,900          13,000
2043............................................................           2,300           6,500           9,000          20,000           1,700           4,600           6,500          14,000
2044............................................................           2,500           7,000           9,800          21,000           1,800           5,000           7,000          15,000
2045............................................................           2,700           7,500          10,000          23,000           2,000           5,400           7,500          16,000
2046............................................................           2,900           8,000          11,000          24,000           2,100           5,700           7,900          17,000
2047............................................................           3,100           8,400          12,000          26,000           2,200           6,000           8,300          18,000
2048............................................................           3,300           8,800          12,000          27,000           2,300           6,300           8,700          19,000
2049............................................................           3,500           9,200          13,000          28,000           2,500           6,600           9,100          20,000
2050............................................................           3,700           9,700          13,000          30,000           2,600           7,000           9,600          21,000
2051............................................................           3,800          10,000          14,000          30,000           2,700           7,200           9,900          22,000
2052............................................................           4,000          10,000          14,000          31,000           2,900           7,400          10,000          22,000
2053............................................................           4,100          11,000          15,000          32,000           3,000           7,600          10,000          23,000
2054............................................................           4,300          11,000          15,000          32,000           3,100           7,800          11,000          23,000
2055............................................................           4,400          11,000          15,000          33,000           3,200           8,000          11,000          24,000
PV..............................................................          22,000          87,000         130,000         260,000          16,000          62,000          96,000         190,000
EAV.............................................................           1,400           4,600           6,500          14,000           1,000           3,300           4,700           9,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Criteria Pollutant Reductions
    Table IX-20 presents the total annual, undiscounted
PM2.5-related health benefits estimated for the stream of
years beginning with the first year of rule implementation, 2027,
through calendar year 2055 for the proposed and alternative programs.
The range of benefits in Table IX-20 reflects the range of premature
mortality estimates based on risk estimates reported from two different
long-term exposure studies using different cohorts to account for
uncertainty in the benefits associated with avoiding PM-related
premature deaths.1008 1009 Although annual benefits
presented in the table are not discounted for the purposes of present
value or annualized value calculations, annual benefits do reflect the
use of 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates to account for avoided
health outcomes that are expected to accrue over more than a single
year (the ``cessation lag'' between the change in PM exposures and the
total realization of changes in health effects). The table also
displays the present and annualized value of estimated benefits that
occur from 2027 to 2055, discounted using both 3-percent and 7-percent
discount rates and reported in 2021 dollars. We estimate that the
present value of benefits for the alternative program is $11 to $21
billion at a 3 percent discount rate and $4.2 to $8.2 billion at a 7
percent discount rate (2021 dollars), which is less than that of the
proposed program. For more detailed information about the benefits
analysis conducted for the proposed and alternative programs, please
refer to Chapter 7 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1008\ Wu, X, Braun, D, Schwartz, J, Kioumourtzoglou, M and
Dominici, F (2020). Evaluating the impact of long-term exposure to
fine particulate matter on mortality among the elderly. Science
advances 6(29): eaba5692.
    \1009\ Pope III, CA, Lefler, JS, Ezzati, M, Higbee, JD,
Marshall, JD, Kim, S-Y, Bechle, M, Gilliat, KS, Vernon, SE and
Robinson, AL (2019). Mortality risk and fine particulate air
pollution in a large, representative cohort of US adults.
Environmental health perspectives 127(7): 077007.

Table IX--20-Year-Over-Year Monetized PM2.5-Related Health Benefits Associated With the Proposal and Alternative
                                           [Millions of 2021 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Proposal                             Alternative
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       3% Discount rate   7% Discount rate   3% Discount rate   7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027................................            $6.4-13            $5.7-12           $4.7-9.6           $4.2-8.7
2028................................              15-31              13-28              12-25              11-22
2029................................              26-53              23-48              22-44              19-40
2030................................              16-33              14-30              12-24              11-21
2031................................          (22)-(45)          (20)-(40)         (6.8)-(18)         (6.2)-(16)

2032................................         (70)-(140)         (64)-(130)          (37)-(82)          (34)-(74)
2033................................        (120)-(240)        (110)-(210)         (67)-(150)         (61)-(130)
2034................................        (160)-(330)        (150)-(300)         (97)-(210)         (88)-(190)
2035................................        (210)-(410)        (190)-(370)        (120)-(260)        (110)-(240)
2036................................        (110)-(220)        (100)-(200)         (57)-(130)         (53)-(110)
2037................................              31-62              27-57              42-76              37-67
2038................................            220-440            200-400            180-340            160-310
2039................................            440-880            400-790            340-660            300-590
2040................................          700-1,400          630-1,300          520-1,000            470-920
2041................................          870-1,700          780-1,500          630-1,200          570-1,100
2042................................        1,000-2,100          940-1,900          750-1,500          680-1,300
2043................................        1,200-2,400        1,100-2,200          880-1,700          790-1,600
2044................................        1,400-2,800        1,300-2,500        1,000-2,000          920-1,800
2045................................        1,600-3,100        1,400-2,800        1,200-2,300        1,000-2,000
2046................................        1,700-3,400        1,600-3,100        1,300-2,400        1,100-2,200
2047................................        1,900-3,600        1,700-3,300        1,300-2,600        1,200-2,400
2048................................        2,000-3,900        1,800-3,500        1,400-2,800        1,300-2,500
2049................................        2,100-4,100        1,900-3,700        1,500-3,000        1,400-2,700
2050................................        2,300-4,400        2,000-3,900        1,600-3,100        1,500-2,800
2051................................        2,300-4,500        2,100-4,100        1,700-3,300        1,500-2,900
2052................................        2,400-4,700        2,200-4,200        1,800-3,400        1,600-3,000
2053................................        2,500-4,800        2,300-4,400        1,800-3,500        1,600-3,100
2054................................        2,600-5,000        2,300-4,500        1,900-3,600        1,700-3,200
2055................................        2,700-5,200        2,400-4,600        1,900-3,700        1,700-3,300
PV..................................      15,000-29,000       5,800-11,000      11,000-21,000        4,200-8,200
EAV.................................          780-1,500            470-910          570-1,100            340-670
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:The range of benefits in this table reflect the range of premature mortality estimates derived from the
  Medicare study (Wu et al., 2020) and the NHIS study (Pope et al., 2019). All benefits estimates are rounded to
  two significant figures. Annual benefit values presented here are not discounted. Negative values in
  parentheses are health disbenefits related to increases in estimated emissions. The present value of benefits
  is the total aggregated value of the series of discounted annual benefits that occur between 2027-2055 (in
  2021 dollars) using either a 3% or 7% discount rate. The benefits associated with the standards presented here
  do not include health benefits associated with reduced criteria pollutant emissions from refineries. The
  benefits in this table also do not include the full complement of health and environmental benefits that, if
  quantified and monetized, would increase the total monetized benefits.

3. Energy Security
    In Table IX-21, EPA presents the macroeconomic oil security
premiums and the energy security benefits for the alternative
CO2 emission standards for the years 2027 through 2055. The
oil security premiums and the energy security benefits for the proposed
CO2 emission standards can be found in Section VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1010\ ORNL's oil security premium methodology provides
estimates through 2050. For years 2051-2055 we use the value of the
2050 oil security premium.

Table IX--21 Oil Security Premiums (2021$/barrel) and the Energy Security Benefits (Millions of 2021$) from 2027-
                               2055 for Alternative GHG Emission Standards \1010\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Benefits
                        Calendar year                             Oil security   -------------------------------
                                                                premium  (range)     Proposal       Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2027.........................................................              $3.57             $15              $8
                                                                   ($0.79-$6.65)
2028.........................................................              $3.65              33              20
                                                                   ($0.80-$6.79)
2029.........................................................              $3.72              55              35
                                                                   ($0.80-$6.92)
2030.........................................................              $3.79              91              63
                                                                   ($0.81-$7.06)
2031.........................................................              $3.87             140             100
                                                                   ($0.85-$7.22)
2032.........................................................              $3.96             210             150
                                                                   ($0.89-$7.38)
2033.........................................................              $4.04             280             200
                                                                   ($0.92-$7.53)
2034.........................................................              $4.13             350             250
                                                                   ($0.96-$7.69)

2035.........................................................              $4.21             420             300
                                                                   ($1.00-$7.85)
2036.........................................................              $4.29             490             350
                                                                   ($1.03-$7.98)
2037.........................................................              $4.36             560             400
                                                                   ($1.06-$8.11)
2038.........................................................              $4.44             620             450
                                                                   ($1.10-$8.24)
2039.........................................................              $4.51             690             490
                                                                   ($1.13-$8.37)
2040.........................................................              $4.59             750             530
                                                                   ($1.16-$8.50)
2041.........................................................              $4.65             800             570
                                                                   ($1.19-$8.62)
2042.........................................................              $4.71             850             610
                                                                   ($1.21-$8.73)
2043.........................................................              $4.76             900             650
                                                                   ($1.24-$8.85)
2044.........................................................              $4.82             940             680
                                                                   ($1.26-$8.96)
2045.........................................................              $4.88             990             710
                                                                   ($1.29-$9.08)
2046.........................................................              $4.94           1,000             740
                                                                   ($1.32-$9.18)
2047.........................................................              $5.00           1,100             760
                                                                   ($1.35-$9.28)
2048.........................................................              $5.06           1,100             790
                                                                   ($1.37-$9.37)
2049.........................................................              $5.12           1,100             810
                                                                   ($1.40-$9.46)
2050.........................................................              $5.18           1,200             840
                                                                   ($1.43-$9.56)
2051.........................................................              $5.18           1,200             850
                                                                   ($1.43-$9.56)
2052.........................................................              $5.18           1,200             870
                                                                   ($1.43-$9.56)
2053.........................................................              $5.18           1,200             890
                                                                   ($1.43-$9.56)
2054.........................................................              $5.18           1,300             900
                                                                   ($1.43-$9.56)
2055.........................................................              $5.18           1,300             910
                                                                   ($1.43-$9.56)
PV, 3%.......................................................  .................          12,000           8,500
PV, 7%.......................................................  .................           6,000           4,300
EAV, 3%......................................................  .................             620             440
EAV, 7%......................................................  .................             490             350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. How do the proposal and alternative compare in overall benefits and
costs?

    Table IX-22 shows the net benefits for the proposal and alternative
relative to the baseline, at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates,
respectively. Section VIII.B of this preamble and Chapter 7 of the DRIA
present more detailed results. These net benefits include benefits
associated with reduced vehicle GHG and non-GHG emissions and EGU CO2
emissions, but do not include any impacts associated with petroleum
extraction, transportation or liquid fuel refining.

                                                             Table IX-22--Net Benefits Associated With the Proposal and Alternative
                                                                                [Millions of 2021 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Proposal                                                       Alternative
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                3% 95th                                                         3% 95th
                                                                    5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     Percentile      5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     Percentile
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2055............................................................         $39,000         $46,000         $50,000         $68,000         $28,000         $33,000         $36,000         $49,000
PV, 3%..........................................................         260,000         320,000         370,000         500,000         180,000         230,000         260,000         360,000
PV, 7%..........................................................         120,000         180,000         230,000         360,000          86,000         130,000         170,000         260,000
EAV, 3%.........................................................          14,000          17,000          19,000          26,000           9,800          12,000          13,000          19,000

EAV, 7%.........................................................           9,300          12,000          14,000          22,000           6,800           9,000          10,000          16,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Climate benefits are based on changes (reductions) in CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions and are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), the social
  cost of methane (SC-CH4), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate).
  We emphasize the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O estimates. As discussed in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost
  of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (IWG 2021), a consideration of climate benefits calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including
  2 percent and lower, are also warranted when discounting intergenerational impacts. The same discount rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SC-GHG at 5, 3, 2.5
  percent) is used to calculate present value of SC-GHGs for internal consistency, while all other costs and benefits are discounted at either 3 percent or 7 percent. Annual costs and benefits
  in 2055 shown are undiscounted values. Note that the non-GHG impacts associated with the standards included here do not include the full complement of health and environmental effects that,
  if quantified and monetized, would increase the total monetized benefits. Instead, the non-GHG benefits are based on benefit-per-ton values that reflect only human health impacts associated
  with reductions in PM2.5 exposure. For the purposes of presentational clarity in the calculation of net benefits, PM2.5-related benefits are averaged across the range of alternative
  estimates for 2055. For PV and EAV estimated with a 3 percent discount rate, we calculate net benefits using PM2.5-related benefits based on the Pope III et al., 2019 study of premature
  mortality. For PV and EAV estimated with a 7 percent discount rate, net benefits reflect PM2.5-related benefits based on the Wu et al., 2020 study.

X. Preemption of State Standards and Requirements for New Locomotives
or New Engines Used in Locomotives

A. Overview

    In April of 1998, EPA adopted its first-ever regulations addressing
air pollutant emissions from new locomotives and new locomotive engines
(including freshly built and remanufactured) under CAA section
213(a)(5), 42 U.S.C. 7547(a)(5).\1011\ As part of the 1998 final rule
EPA also promulgated regulations designed to codify the nonroad
preemption provisions of section 209(e) of the CAA and to clarify the
prohibition on certain new nonroad engines or nonroad vehicles
standards by states or political subdivisions and other requirements
relating to the control of emissions, including from new locomotives or
new engines used in locomotives. EPA adopted a regulation that set a
period equivalent in length to 133 percent of the regulatory useful
life of a new locomotive or engine during which certain non-Federal
requirements are preempted from applying to locomotives or engines used
in locomotives.\1012\ EPA also adopted regulations to implement the CAA
provisions allowing California to request authorization for other non-
Federal requirements on non-new locomotives and engines used in
locomotives not otherwise prohibited.\1013\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1011\ Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive
Engines, 63 FR 18978 (April 16, 1998), codified at 40 CFR parts 85,
89 and 92.
    \1012\ For purely informational purposes, EPA notes that it is
not aware that its regulations addressing the scope of preemption of
state regulation of other types of nonroad engines and nonroad
vehicles present the concerns described here relating to
locomotives. Moreover, EPA's regulations do not set an equivalent
period of preemption for any other class of nonroad engines (other
than locomotives). EPA has issued several authorizations of
California regulations relating to other non-new nonroad standards.
See 80 FR 76468 (December 9, 2015); 78 FR 58090 (September 20,
2013). This action does not reopen any aspect of EPA's preemption
regulations, policies, or actions regarding any other nonroad
engines or vehicles, or regarding any other topics besides those
expressly described in the text of the preamble and the proposed
regulations.
    \1013\ To avoid confusion of the term ``used'' sometimes meaning
``placed or mounted,'' we employ the term ``non-new'' to describe
engines that do not meet the definition of ``new'' in section
1074.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 209(e)(2)(B) requires EPA to promulgate regulations
implementing subsection 209(e), which addresses the prohibition of
state standards regarding certain classes of nonroad engines or
vehicles and potential EPA authorization of state standards for other
nonroad engines or vehicles. The prohibited state standards or other
requirements relating to the control of emissions include, under CAA
section 209(e)(1)(B), those affecting new locomotives or new engines
used in locomotives. Such state requirements cannot be authorized by
EPA under section 209(b), pursuant to the final sentence of section
209(e)(1), or under section 209(e)(2). However, section 209(e)(2)
requires EPA to authorize, subject to certain criteria, California's
adoption and enforcement of standards and other requirements relating
to control of emissions from nonroad vehicles or engines other than
those referred to in paragraph 209(e)(1), which would include non-new
locomotives and non-new engines used in locomotives.
    EPA is concerned that our preemption regulations as adopted,
particularly in extending preemption well beyond the CAA language of
prohibiting the state regulation of new locomotives and new engines
used in locomotives and to an extended point at which locomotives and
engines are no longer new, may no longer be appropriate.\1014\
Specifically, our existing regulations may have the unintended effect
of both exceeding Congress' prescribed prohibition on state regulation
of new locomotives and engines in section 209(e)(1) and impeding states
from adopting innovative programs to reduce locomotive emissions that
may be permissible under CAA section 209(e)(2). In this rule, EPA
proposes to revise our locomotive preemption regulations to better
align with the precise language Congress provided in section 209(e) and
the Congressional directive to EPA to implement the prohibition of
state regulation of new locomotives and new engines used in locomotives
while ensuring that states are not impeded from adopting programs as
allowed by the CAA to address the contribution of air pollutant
emissions from non-new locomotives and engines to their air quality
issues. In this section, EPA outlines the reasons that its previous
extension of the categorical prohibition of state regulations
applicable to locomotives and engines up to 133 percent of the
regulatory useful life is not required by the CAA and may no longer be
appropriate considering developments since the 1998 rule. We believe it
is necessary to better align our regulatory text with the plain
language of the CAA to provide regulatory space for state controls that
do not inappropriately affect the design and manufacture of new
locomotives or new engines used in locomotives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1014\ EPA announced an intent to review this issue in November
2022. See https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/petitions-address-harmful-emissions-locomotives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background

1. EPA's New Locomotive and Engine Standards and the Regulated Fleet
\1015\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1015\ EPA provides this discussion of the Federal locomotive
requirements under the CAA for background purposes only. In this
proposal, EPA is not reopening the Federal locomotive requirements,
and any comments on such will be deemed beyond the scope of the
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 called on EPA to adopt
emission

standards for new locomotives and new locomotive engines to achieve the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which EPA determines will be available for
the locomotives or engines, giving appropriate consideration to the
cost of applying such technology within the period of time available to
manufacturers and to associated noise, energy, and safety factors. CAA
section 213(a)(5), 42 U.S.C. 7547(a)(5). From the beginning, EPA's new
locomotive emission control program identified two ways by which
locomotives and engines would be deemed ``new'' and thus subject to the
standards: EPA imposed emission standards for so-called ``freshly
manufactured'' locomotives that have increasing stringency levels based
on which ``Tier'' the new locomotive belongs to, and We applied
emission standards for older locomotives built beginning in 1973 that
would apply when those older locomotives are ``remanufactured'' (all of
the power assemblies are either replaced or are inspected and
requalified either all at once or within a 5-year period) according to
their original Tier. This approach was necessary due to the very long
service lives of locomotives. As we explained in the 1998 rule, the
service life of a locomotive can extend to 40 years and beyond, during
which period the engine and the locomotive undergo several extensive
remanufacturing operations that EPA has determined makes the locomotive
or engine ``new'' again. These remanufacturing operations generally
consist of, at a minimum, the replacement of the power assemblies
(i.e., pistons, piston rings, cylinder liners, cylinder heads, fuel
injectors, valves, etc.) with new components (or components that are in
new condition) to restore the locomotive to the condition it was in
when originally manufactured with respect to performance, durability,
and emissions. Because they are designed to be rebuilt on a regular
schedule, locomotives can remain in service as long as the main engine
block remains serviceable. EPA's locomotive remanufacture program
reduces emissions from these older locomotives, which are fitted with
better parts and systems when they are remanufactured and become
``new'' again. However, the stringency of the remanufacture standards
has been limited by the extent to which new emission control technology
can be retrofit on these older designs.
    Not surprisingly, recent fleet profile data shows that the in-
service locomotive fleet continues to be dominated by Tier 2 and
earlier locomotives subject to EPA's less stringent emission
standards.\1016\ According to data supporting EPA's 2020 National
Emission Inventory, there are 16,787 locomotives in the Class I line-
haul fleet.\1017\ Of these, about 26 percent are Tier 3 or Tier 4
locomotives subject to more stringent emission standards.\1018\ The
other 74 percent are Tier 2 or earlier locomotives, broken down as
follows: About 62 percent are remanufactured to the revised
remanufacture standards adopted in 2008; 11 percent have not been
remanufactured and continue to have the higher emissions of their
original certification tier; and a small number, about 1 percent, are
unregulated (pre-1973) locomotives. Class II and III \1019\ railroads
are not generally subject to remanufacturing obligations. To the extent
one of these railroads purchases a locomotive that was previously
certified to EPA's standards, then the railroad must ensure the
locomotive continues to comply with those standards. The Class II and
III line-haul fleet consists of 3,447 locomotives. Of these, about 7
percent are Tier 3 or 4 locomotives. The other 93 percent are Tier 2 or
earlier, broken down as follows: About 39 percent of the locomotives
are unregulated (pre-1973); 48 percent are Tier 0; and The other six
percent are Tier 1 or Tier 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1016\ 2020 National Emissions Inventory Locomotive Methodology
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Eastern
Research Group, Inc. (May 19, 2022). https://gaftp.epa.gov/air/nei/2020/doc/supporting_data/nonpoint/Rail/2020_NEI_Rail_062722.pdf.
    \1017\ The current classification of railroads adopted by the
Surface Transportation Board (STB) in 2021 is based on annual
carrier operating revenue, as follows: Class I railroads, greater
than $943.9 million; Class II railroads, $42.4 to $943.9 million;
Class III railroads less than $42.4 million. See 49 CFR 1201 (1-1
Classification of Carriers).
    \1018\ EPA took action to set additional emission standards for
new locomotives and engines in 2008; see final rule published at 73
FR 37096 (June 30, 2008), Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From
Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than
30 Liters per Cylinder.
    \1019\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the large share of older locomotives in the Class I, II and
III railroad fleets, and their emissions contribution to ambient
concentrations of air pollution that may cause violations of national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), states and local entities who
must develop state implementation plans (SIPs) demonstrating attainment
of NAAQS have expressed interest in obtaining greater emissions
reductions from this sector, including possibly adopting programs to
achieve greater emission reductions from non-new locomotives beyond
those achieved by EPA's standards applicable to new locomotives. States
and local entities have expressed particular interest in addressing
emissions from non-new locomotives for areas located along high traffic
rail lines and/or in communities with environmental justice concerns.
However, notwithstanding Congress' provision in section 209(e)(2) for
EPA to authorize such state efforts, subject to certain criteria, the
agency now believes that the pre-emption regulation for locomotives
adopted in the 1998 rule might preclude states (following California as
described Section X.B.2) from exploring some innovative local programs.
2. EPA's Regulatory Preemption of State Control of Locomotive and
Engine Emissions
    As part of the 1998 locomotive rule EPA established regulations
that prohibited state regulation of new locomotives and new engines
used in locomotives. This is currently reflected in the regulatory text
of 40 CFR 1074.12(a), and reflects Congress' command in CAA section
209(e)(1)(B). In addition, to provide certainty to state, localities,
and industry regarding the period when certain state controls would be
prohibited under 209(e)(1)(B), EPA also provided that such prohibition
would last for a period equal to 133 percent of the useful life of a
new locomotive or new engine used in a locomotive--even after the
locomotive or engine was placed into service and ceased to be ``new.''
\1020\ This is currently reflected at section 1074.12(b) of EPA's rule,
along with several specific types of standards or other requirements
that EPA then concluded are preempted. This decision to codify a
prohibition period extending beyond when locomotives are new and to
enumerate several preempted types of requirements was based on EPA's
understanding of the nature of the locomotive industry, the regulatory
landscape, and the then-existing emission control technologies
considering the CAA and other relevant legal considerations.\1021\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1020\ Proposed Rule: Emission Standards for Locomotives and
Locomotive Engines, 62 FR 6366 (February 11, 1997)
    \1021\ These considerations included: The language of the CAA
and its legislative history (62 FR 6397-6398; Summary and Analysis
of Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Emission
Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines, 1998), p. 12;
court rulings (see 62 FR 6397, see also Allway Taxi, Inc. v. City of
New York, 340 F. Supp. 1120, 1124 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)); Constitutional
concerns (Summary and Analysis of Comments on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive
Engines, 1998, pp. 13, 17, 18); and Technical challenges of states
regulating non-new locomotives and engines used in locomotives
(Summary and Analysis of Comments on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for Emission Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive
Engines, 1998, Chapter 1 Section C).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1998, the locomotive manufacturers and remanufacturers were
anticipating a need to develop emission technologies to apply to their
locomotive engines with uncontrolled emissions to comply with the first
three Tiers of locomotive emission standards (Tiers 0, 1, and 2). They
would eventually need to apply technology to meet Tiers 3 and 4,
adopted in 2008 and fully phased-in by 2015. As EPA explained in 1998,
there was a risk that some state regulations could have affected the
design and manufacture of new locomotives and new engines used in
locomotives (including freshly manufactured and remanufactured), and
additional certainty was determined to be beneficial for all interested
parties.\1022\ At the same time, in the 1998 rulemaking EPA explained
that states may regulate the use and operation of locomotives in a
manner that does not significantly affect the design or manufacture of
a new (including remanufactured) locomotive or engine, potentially
allowing states to control nuisances, and that California (and other
states following California) may obtain an EPA authorization (waiver of
Federal preemption) for standards and other requirements relating to
the control of emissions from non-new locomotives and non-new engines
used in locomotives, provided they did not significantly affect the
design and manufacture of new locomotives or engines.\1023\ This
allowance is currently reflected in EPA's rules at section 1074.101
through 1074.115. However, to date California has not sought EPA
authorization under section 209(e) of any program to address emissions
from non-new locomotives or engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1022\ 63 FR 18979 and 18993-18994.
    \1023\ Summary and Analysis of Comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Emission Standards for Locomotives and
Locomotive Engines, EPA, EPA-420-R-97-101, pp. 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By defining the period of preemption to be 133 percent of the
useful life of a new locomotive or engine EPA intended to preclude
certain forms of potential state regulation of non-new locomotives due
to the concern they could significantly impact the design and
manufacture of new locomotives and new engines used in locomotives.
EPA's intention to preclude some but not all forms of state regulation
is clearly discussed in the 1997 NPRM,\1024\ in the Summary and
Analysis of Comments,\1025\ and in the final 1998 rulemaking \1026\
where we explained that ``The list of state controls that are
explicitly preempted under today's regulation is not intended to be
exclusive'' \1027\ and ``. . . all state requirements relating to the
control of emissions from in-use locomotives and locomotive engines,
including state requirements not listed as preempted [. . .], are
subject to section 209(e)(2)'s waiver requirement.'' \1028\ This
preemption language was recodified in the sections of 40 CFR part 1074,
in October of 2008, as part of EPA's final rule establishing standards
for the Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and
Equipment.\1029\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1024\ See 62 FR 6366, 6398, and 6399.
    \1025\ Summary and Analysis of Comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Emission Standards for Locomotives and
Locomotive Engines, EPA, EPA-420-R-97-101, pp. 15-19.
    \1026\ See 63 FR 18978.
    \1027\ 63 FR 18994.
    \1028\ Ibid.
    \1029\ Oct 8, 2008, 73 FR 59033, Control of Emissions from
Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines & Equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Evaluation of Impact of Regulatory Preemption

    In EPA's final 1998 action, EPA adopted regulations preempting
certain state and local controls of locomotives and engines used in
locomotives, which we determined to be appropriate based on our
understanding of the information at the time.\1030\ The intent of these
regulations was to provide ``certainty with respect to when state
controls would be preempted'' (62 FR 6398) and determine that ``certain
categories of potential state requirements would be preempted under the
proposed approach'' (62 FR 6398).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1030\ See, 63 FR at 18993-18994, codified at 40 CFR 85.1603
Application of definitions; scope of preemption. This was later
recodified at 40 CFR 1074.12; see 73 FR 59034 (Oct. 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's explanation for the preemptions was particularly focused on
specific types of controls listed in 40 CFR 1074.12(b), which we deemed
categorically preempted for locomotives and engines up to 133 percent
of the regulatory useful life.\1031\ For all other types of controls,
the 1998 Locomotive final rulemaking stated that ``. . . all state
requirements relating to the control of emissions from in-use
locomotives and locomotive engines, including state requirements not
listed as preempted in 40 CFR 85.1603(c)(1), are subject to section
209(e)(2)'s waiver requirement.'' \1032\ Further, in our response to
comments regarding preemption of state regulations we explained,
``states may regulate the use and operation of locomotives in a manner
that does not significantly affect the design or manufacture of a new
(including remanufactured) locomotive or engine, potentially allowing
states to control nuisances.'' \1033\ As an example, the final rule
deviated from the proposal by excluding state in-use testing programs
using the Federal test procedure from the list of preempted controls
because EPA could not determine that it would violate
209(e)(1)(B).\1034\ While these aspects of the 1998 rule make a case
that there are opportunities for California to obtain authorization
under CAA 209(e)(2) for eligible measures, we are concerned that the
effect of our 1998 regulation has been to discourage consideration of
all such opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1031\ Including but not limited to emission standards,
mandatory fleet average standards, certification requirements,
retrofit and aftermarket equipment requirements, and non-Federal in-
use testing requirements.
    \1032\ See, 63 FR 18994.
    \1033\ Summary and Analysis of Comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Emission Standards for Locomotives and
Locomotive Engines, EPA, EPA-420-R-97-101, p. 18.
    \1034\ 63 FR 18993-18994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, locomotive emission controls have developed
significantly since the 1998 rule, and some of these developments call
into question the factual underpinnings of EPA's prior decision to
categorially preempt certain controls up to 133 percent of the
regulatory useful life. It has been 15 years since EPA's 2008 rule was
finalized and eight years since the first compliance year of the
locomotive Tier 4 emissions standards. With the certainty provided by
the long lead time prior to implementation of Tier 4 and the stability
provided by a long period of unchanged standards, the emission control
technologies for new diesel locomotives are now well established. In
developing this proposal, we reviewed the technical basis for the types
of controls in 40 CFR 1074.12(b) established in 1998 and evaluated
currently available technologies and practices to investigate the
extent to which our reasoning in 1998 still holds today, following more
recent technological developments and the extent to which emissions
control tools may be employed for existing locomotives without
necessarily presenting significant effects on the

design and manufacture of new locomotives and engines.
    We have identified two examples of post-1998 emission controls that
states would be prohibited from requiring for non-new locomotives under
the language of 40 CFR 1074.12(b), but that initially appear would not
significantly affect the design or manufacture of a new locomotive or
locomotive engine and in fact have in some cases been voluntarily
applied. Although we have not received any submission of an actual
regulation addressing controls of this nature, which would need to be
evaluated on its own basis under CAA section 209(e)(2), we discuss
these possible measures that might not be preempted as requirements
applying to new locomotives or new engines used in locomotives if
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Our evaluation suggests that the
1998 regulatory provisions categorically preempting certain controls up
to 133 percent of the useful life may be overly restrictive in
precluding state consideration of potential measures to reduce
emissions from existing locomotives.
    One example of a post-1998 control measure that we have identified
as potentially not significantly affecting the design or manufacture of
a new locomotive or engine is the retrofitting of an auxiliary power
unit (APU) to support engine shutdown for idle reduction. In this
scenario, installation of such an APU on a locomotive with an engine
shutdown timer can enable the main engine to shut down while
maintaining power to auxiliary functions such as air brake pressure and
battery state of charge. There may be sufficient space and fluids
onboard to accommodate this component without disrupting the existing
equipment or the design of new remanufacturing kits. Under the terms of
current 40 CFR 1074.12(b) this is an example of a requirement that may
be categorically preempted because current section 1074.12(b) preempts
state retrofit and aftermarket equipment requirements. Without
evaluating the technical drawbacks or merits of any specific state
requirement for such a retrofitting on existing locomotives, we observe
that such a requirement could potentially be consistent with the
statutory authorization criteria and be allowed if evaluated on its own
merits under 40 CFR 1074.101 through 1074.115. As further evidence that
such a retrofit requirement would not likely have an adverse effect on
the design of new locomotives, this type of technology retrofit project
is often pursued by locomotive operators on a voluntary basis.\1035\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1035\ See, for example, Railway Age, BNSF, Hotstart partner on
locomotive retrofit, November 19, 2014. https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/bnsf-hotstart-partner-on-locomotive-retrofit/
accessed January 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second example of a post-1998 emission control measure that may
not significantly affect the design or manufacture of a new locomotive
or engine is the installation of a new load control calibration
strategy that better manages load on the main engine while the
locomotive is in line haul service. Such technology is utilized today
and may be installed on units already in service \1036\ and is
available as an upgrade in some certified remanufacture kits.\1037\ In
this scenario, a locomotive would have certain software installed that
governs how the engine is used during the route, which helps save fuel
and reduces emissions. Because the components involved include minimal
hardware, we do not believe implementation of this measure would result
in a significant effect on the design of new locomotives. Therefore, a
state imposing a requirement that existing locomotives employ it would
not necessarily constitute a control of new locomotive emissions.
Nonetheless, under the existing regulations, such a control may be
categorically preempted. Without evaluating the technical drawbacks or
merits of such a state's specific action to impose such a requirement
for this kind of more recent technological measure, we believe that our
1998 regulatory text may inappropriately restrict whether a state can
request authorization under CAA section 209(e)(2) to impose such a
requirement. Therefore, EPA believes that there are in fact reasonable
examples of readily available technologies that if included as part of
a state regulatory program could be considered for authorization under
CAA section 209(e)(2) and our rules at 40 CFR 1074.101 through
1074.115, but that under our 1998 regulatory text in 40 CFR
1074.12(b)--adopted in advance of the development of these newer
technological measures--California is currently discouraged from
exploring. Any such program should be evaluated on its own terms, if
submitted, rather than be assumed to significantly affect design and
manufacture of new locomotives under a categorical regulatory
preemption provision that did not account for more recent technological
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1036\ See, for example, https://www.nyabproducts.com/leader/
and https://www.wabteccorp.com/digital-electronics/train-performance-and-automation/trip-optimizer, accessed January 2023.
    \1037\ See, for example, Wabtec's certified remanufacture
families PGETK0668T1Y and PGETK0668T0C, which are Tier 1 and Tier 0
systems, respectively, that include the Trip Optimizer software as
an energy saving design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA's adoption of its regulations in 1998 helped facilitate a
smooth regulatory progression from uncontrolled to regulated
locomotives, the more recent technological developments of pollution
control measures, such as those briefly discussed in this Section X,
indicate that there may be instances now where the general conclusions
reached in 1998 may no longer be supportable, and instead may result in
our 1998 preemption rules inappropriately reaching beyond the scope of
section 209(e)(1)'s prohibition on requirements that relate to new
locomotives and new engines used in locomotives. Although EPA has
discussed only some examples of potential control measures that might
be considered for application under a state program for existing
locomotives without significantly affecting the design and manufacture
of new locomotives, the very nature of rapid technological development
suggests that it is not necessary or possible for EPA to prejudge, as
under the current text of 40 CFR 1074.12, all potential forms of state
control of existing locomotives regarding whether they should remain
preempted with no possibility of authorization under CAA section
209(e)(2).
    EPA further believes that the examples discussed show there is
sufficient information available to more generally call into question
the conclusion that all the forms of state control explicitly preempted
by the current text in 40 CFR 1074.12(b) would necessarily affect how
manufacturers and remanufacturers design new locomotives and new
engines used in locomotives. Based on these examples, along with the
fact that any request from California (for its regulatory and
technological approaches) under 40 CFR 1074.101 through 1074.115 would
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, we observe that by removing the
language in 40 CFR 1074.12(b) EPA would still be required to evaluate
any submission from California under CAA section 209(e)(1) and (2),
providing the opportunity for public comment by all interested
stakeholders. EPA seeks comment on this assessment and to what extent
there would be public benefit if we were to retain the current
regulatory text.
    While EPA can no longer say, for certain, that our conclusions in
1998 about state imposition of in-use requirements will always be true
for

those listed forms of standards or requirements, we are also not saying
that such measures can or will be authorized under CAA section
209(e)(2) (even for the examples provided). EPA is not concluding in
this document that any of these forms of standards, if submitted, would
be authorized, or that these forms of standards would not contravene
CAA section 209(e)(1). Rather this action to revise 40 CFR 1074.12, if
finalized, would better allow California the opportunity to explore,
develop, and justify in a program-specific submission for authorization
why a certain form of state regulation should be allowed under CAA
section 209(e)(2) and our rules at 40 CFR 1074.101 through 1074.115,
and allow EPA to evaluate such a submission on a case-by-case basis
evaluating its specific merits rather than being categorically
preempted without the benefit of an actual administrative record
regarding the specific state regulation.
    The scope of this proposal includes the types of state measures
preempted as well as the period of preemption. EPA's assessment that
our previous general conclusions regarding what types of measures must
be preempted at the outset may no longer be supportable necessarily
extends to the period of preemption imposed by our regulations. The
current text at 40 CFR 1074.12(b) preempts the state control of in-use
locomotives for the categories of regulations listed for a period of
133 percent of useful life of a new locomotive or engine. Since we now
believe it is inappropriate to prejudge that all the listed types of
measures would have such an effect, we likewise cannot say that the
fixed period of preemption of such measures must still apply. EPA
therefore proposes to remove the specified period of preemption in 40
CFR 1074.12(b). In place of this, the EPA would include evaluation of
the temporal nature of any submitted state controls as part of its
evaluation of any authorization request under 40 CFR 1074.101 through
1074.115.

D. What is EPA proposing?

    We believe the current preemption language may impede California's
exploration of regulations of non-new locomotives and locomotive
engines beyond what is required by CAA section 209(e). To address this,
EPA is proposing to make several revisions in part 1074, including
sections 1074.10, 1074.12, and 1074.101.
    In 40 CFR 1074.10, we propose to revise subsection (b) to contain
text that is currently located in section 1074.12(a), and move the
current text of subsection (b) into a new subsection (c). This would
solely be a housekeeping measure, as no revisions to the content of the
text or current subsection 1074.12(a) are proposed.
    In 40 CFR 1074.12, we are proposing to delete 40 CFR 1074.12 in its
entirety. We believe the removal of the explicit period of preemption
as well as the listed categories of state control measures would signal
that not all state regulations are intended to be preempted and would
better align the scope of the regulation with the CAA. We seek comment
on these proposed revisions and whether they adequately align our
regulations with the CAA, and whether they achieve the intended purpose
of not impeding California from pursuing state-level standards or
control measures that may be considered for authorization according to
the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 1074.101 through 1074.115. We note
that under the proposal, California rules addressing non-new
locomotives or engines would still need to go through the authorization
process at 40 CFR 1074.101 through 1074.105, which would ensure
compliance with the statutory authorization criteria: California's
determination that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable Federal
standards is not arbitrary and capricious; Any opponents of the
authorization have not met their burdens to demonstrate that California
does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions; and Any such opponents have not demonstrated that such
standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent
with section 209 of the CAA (including section 209(e)(1)).\1038\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1038\ 40 CFR 1074.105(b). Adopted at Part 85.1603(c)(1) in 1998
and recodified in Part 1074 as part of the Control of Emissions From
Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment, October 8, 2008, 73 FR
59033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that we would still have concerns related to
authorization requests that included forms of state controls that would
significantly affect the design or manufacture of a new locomotive or
engine. However, EPA recognizes that significant advances in technology
have occurred in the intervening years since 1998, along with
innovative forms of regulations. Any state authorization application
received by EPA would need to demonstrate why the submitted control
measure would not significantly affect the design or manufacture of a
new locomotive. As required by the CAA, the EPA would evaluate any such
application on a case-by-case basis to determine if the controls may be
authorized under section 209(e)(2).
    Note that certain categories of potential state requirements, while
not expressly preempted by section 209(e)(1) or EPA's regulations
implementing section 209(e)(1), may be preempted if they would create a
conflict with other provisions of the Act. For example, section
203(a)(3) of the Act prohibits tampering, and certain requirements to
modify engines might constitute tampering. Analysis of such possible
conflicts would be incorporated into the evaluation of EPA's review of
an authorization request under 40 CFR 1074.101 through 1074.115.
    In 40 CFR 1074.101, we propose a minor housekeeping edit to
paragraph (a) of this section, to refer to the relocated text in
1074.10(b) that is being moved out of 1074.12.
    None of the proposed changes to our preemption regulations would
have any impact on the regulation of new locomotives or engines used in
locomotives (including freshly built and remanufactured) under 40 CFR
part 1033. We are not reopening any aspect of the regulation of new
locomotives or engines, and any comments on these topics will be deemed
beyond the scope.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, this action is a
significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to
recommendations received as part of Executive Order 12866 review have
been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis, the draft ``Regulatory Impact Analysis--Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles-Phase 3--Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking,'' is available in the docket. The analyses contained in
this document are also summarized in Sections II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII
and IX of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR Number 2734.1. You can find a copy
of the Supporting Statement in the docket for this rule, and it is
briefly summarized here.
    This proposed rulemaking consists of targeted updates to the
existing GHG emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles beginning with
MY 2027 in consideration of zero-emission technology. The information
collection activities for EPA's Phase 2 GHG program would not change as
a result of this proposed rule, although manufacturers would experience
a cost associated with reviewing the new requirements.

     Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers of heavy-
duty onroad vehicles.
     Respondent's obligation to respond: Regulated entities
must respond to the collection if they wish to sell their products