March 2010 

Economic Impact Analysis for 

Corporate Parent and NAICS 

Reporting Amendment to MRR 

Report for Proposed Rule
CONTENTS

Section 1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................. 1-1

Section 2 Summary of the Proposed Ammendment ........................................................... 2-1

2.1 Definition of Affected Entities ......................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Rational for Collecting Parent Company and NAICS code(s).......................... 2-6

Section 3 Facility- and Supplier-Level Cost Analysis ........................................................ 3-1

3.1 Estimating the Loaded Hourly Wage Rates ...................................................... 3-1

3.2 Estimating Facility and Supplier Reporting Burden.......................................... 3-2

3.2.1 U.S. Parent Company Name, Address, and Ownership Status............... 3-2

3.2.2 Primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

Code and Cogeneration units ................................................................ 3-4

3.2.3 Summary of Burden Estimate Per Facility ............................................ 3-5

Section 4 Economic Analysis ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 National Cost Estimates ................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 National Cost Estimate Under Option 1 ................................................ 4-2

4.1.2 National Cost Estimate Under Option 2 ................................................ 4-3

4.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................. 4-6

4.2 Small Entity Analysis....................................................................................... 4-9

Section 5 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews ............................................................. 5-1

5.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review................................ 5-1

5.2 Paperwork Reduction Act ................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)..................................................................... 5-3

5.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)....................................................... 5-4

5.5 Executive Order 13132: Federalism ................................................................. 5-5

5.6 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments ................................................................................................... 5-5
ii 

5.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks.......................................................................... 5-6

5.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use ......................................................................................... 5-6

5.9 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ...................................... 5-6

5.10 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations..................................... 5-6
iii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2-1.Examples of Regulated Entities by Category ........................................................... 2-2

Table 3-1. Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category...................................................... 3-1

Table 3-2. Summary of Burden Estimate Per Facility For Ownership, Parent Company Name(s), 

Address(es), and Percent Ownership..................................................................... 3-4

Table 3-3. Summary of Burden Estimate for NAICS and Cogeneration Per Facility (Minutes)3-5

Table 3-4. Summary of Burden Estimate Per Facility (Minutes) .............................................. 3-6

Table 4-1. Number of Facilities and Suppliers Required to Report GHG Emissions by Industry 

Sector ................................................................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-2. Option 1: National Compliance Burden and Costs by Data Element and Reporting 

Year...................................................................................................................... 4-3

Table 4-3. Facility Ownership in the Electric Utility Sector..................................................... 4-4

Table 4-4. Option 2: National Compliance Burden and Costs by Data Element and Reporting 

Year...................................................................................................................... 4-5

Table 4-5. Comparison of Burden and Costs for Options 1 and 2............................................. 4-5

Table 4-6. Scaling Factors and Sensitivity Analysis Results of Option 1 by Industry............... 4-8

Table 4-7. Summary of Sensitivity Results for National Burden and Costs for Option 1.......... 4-9

Table 5-1. Cost Summary for Two Alternatives under the Proposed Rulemaking .................... 5-1
1-1 

Section 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

EPA is proposing to amend the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rule, 

published on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260), to require reporters subject to the rule to provide: 

(1) the name, address, and ownership status of their U.S. parent company; (2) their primary and 

all other applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code(s); and (3) an 

indication of whether or not any of their reported emissions are from a cogeneration unit. This 

proposed rule includes two alternative options for reporting additional data elements. Under 

Option 1, the additional data elements include legal name, physical address, and ownership status 

of a reporter’s U.S. parent company; primary and all other applicable North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code(s); and an indication of whether or not reported emissions 

include those from a cogeneration unit(s). Under Option 2, EPA proposes to collect the same 

information as the first option, except for ownership status, and would also require facilities and 

suppliers who have multiple U.S. parent companies to report all parent companies and their 

respective percentages ownership. 

Currently, the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, published on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 

56260), requires reporting by facilities that emit GHGs (“facilities”) and by suppliers of fuels 

and industrial gases (“suppliers”). Facilities and suppliers that meet the applicability criteria in 

subpart A of 40 CFR part 98 (“regulated entities” or “reporters”) must submit annual GHG 

reports.1 A list of the information that all reporters must submit in their annual reports is 

included in the general provisions of the rule (see 40 CFR 98.3(c)). This list includes 

owner/operator identification information, but does not currently require reporters to provide 

information on their U.S. parent company, on their primary and other applicable NAICS code(s), 

or on whether any of their reported emissions are from a cogeneration unit. In this notice, EPA 

proposes amendments to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule that would require facilities and 

suppliers subject to the rule to provide this additional information in their annual reports. 

The balance of this report provides a summary of the proposed rule’s two alternative 

options; definition of the affected entities; a rational for additional information requirements; a 

summary of the compliance burden; the economic impact analysis; and a summary of EPA’s 

compliance with relevant rulemaking Executive Orders and statutes.

 

1

 Because they are not covered under 40 CFR part 98, this rule does not apply to mobile sources. 
2-1 

Section 2

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AMMENDMENT 

EPA proposes to add additional reporting elements to the list of items included in annual 

GHG reports submitted by facilities and suppliers subject to the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule. The first option presented in today’s proposal would require facilities to report 

the following additional data fields: the legal name, physical address, and ownership status of the 

highest-level U.S. parent company, primary and all other applicable NAICS codes, and 

indication of whether or not reported emissions include those from cogeneration. The second 

option presented in today’s proposal would collect the same information, except for ownership 

status but also require facilities and suppliers with multiple U.S. parent companies to report the 

legal names and physical addresses of all parent companies and provide the percent of ownership 

held by each. Under both options, facilities and suppliers would also be required to report the 

primary and all other applicable six digit NAICS codes and indicate if the reported emissions 

include those from a cogeneration unit. The data collected under this proposal would provide 

EPA with information necessary to compile corporate and sector-level GHG emissions. 

2.1 Definition of Affected Entities 

The proposed amendment applies universally to all subparts of the Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Therefore, facilities and suppliers that meet the applicability 

criteria for any of the subparts of 40 CFR Part 98 of the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule would 

be required to report the additional data elements included in this proposed amendment.2

Regulated categories and entities subject to this amendment are listed in Table 2-1. 

 

2

 EPA is not implementing subpart JJ of the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule due to a Congressional restriction 

prohibiting the expenditure of funds for this purpose. In addition, today’s proposed amendment does not apply 

to mobile sources because they are not covered under 40 CFR Part 98. 
2-2 

Table 2-1.Examples of Regulated Entities by Category 

Category

NAICS 

Codes Examples of Regulated Entities

211 Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas. 321 Manufacturers of lumber and wood products.322 Pulp and paper mills.325 Chemical manufacturers.324 Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal products.316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products.331 Steel works, blast furnaces.332 Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring.336 Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories.221 Electric, gas, and sanitary services.622 Health services.

General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

611 Educational services.

Electricity Generation 221112 Fossil-fuel fired electric generating units, including units owned by 

governments and units located in Indian Country.

Adipic Acid Production 325199 Adipic acid manufacturing facilities.Aluminum Production 331312 Primary Aluminum production facilities.Ammonia Manufacturing 325311 Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia manufacturing facilities.Cement Production 327310 Portland Cement manufacturing plants.Ferroalloy Production 331112 Ferroalloys manufacturing facilities.Glass Production 327211 Flat glass manufacturing facilities.

327213 Glass container manufacturing facilities.327212 Other pressed and blown glass and glassware manufacturing facilit

HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

325120 Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities.

Hydrogen Production 325120 Hydrogen manufacturing facilities.Iron and Steel Production 331111 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast 

process furnace shops.

Lead Production 331419 Primary lead smelting and refining facilities.

331492 Secondary lead smelting and refining facilities.

Lime Production 327410 Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic hydrates manufacturiNitric Acid Production 325311 Nitric acid manufacturing facilities.
2-3 

Category

NAICS 

Codes Examples of Regulated Entities

Petrochemical Production 32511 Ethylene dichloride manufacturing facilities.

325199 Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, methanol manufacturing facilities.325110 Ethylene manufacturing facilities.325182 Carbon black manufacturing facilities.

Petroleum Refineries 324110 Petroleum refineries.Phosphoric Acid Production 325312 Phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities.Pulp and Paper Manufacturing 322110 Pulp mills.

322121 Paper mills.322130 Paperboard mills.

Silicon Carbide Production 327910 Silicon carbide abrasives manufacturing facilities.Soda Ash Manufacturing 325181 Alkalies and chlorine manufacturing facilities.

212391 Soda ash, natural, mining and/or beneficiation.

Titanium Dioxide Production 325188 Titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities.Zinc Production 331419 Primary zinc refining facilities.

331492 Zinc dust reclaiming facilities, recovering from scrap and/or alloyin

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 562212 Solid waste landfills.

221320 Sewage treatment facilities.

Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids Fuels 211111 Coal liquefaction at mine sites.Suppliers of Petroleum Products 324110 Petroleum refineries.Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs 221210 Natural gas distribution facilities.

211112 Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.

Suppliers of Industrial GHGs 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.
2-4 

The list of regulated entities presented in Table 2-1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Table 

1 lists the types of entities that EPA currently is aware of that could be potentially affected by 

this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be subject to reporting 

requirements. To determine whether an entity is affected by this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A. 

Summary of Reporting Requirements 

In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is considering two options that would require reporting 

of data elements related to information on a reporter’s U.S. parent company. Under Option 1, 

EPA is proposing that facilities and suppliers would provide the legal name and physical address 

of its highest-level U.S. parent company with the largest ownership interest and to indicate its 

ownership status by selecting from a list of codes provided by EPA. Under Option 2, facility and 

suppliers would provide the legal name(s) and address(es) of all of their U.S. Parent 

Company(s) and their respective percentages of ownership. 

Reporting Requirement under Option 1 

Under Option 1, the following data elements would be reported: 

• U.S. Parent Company Legal Name; 

• U.S. Parent Company Physical Address; 

• Ownership Status 

• Primary and other applicable NAICS Code(s); and 

• Facility Cogeneration. 

As noted above, each reporter would be required to indicate one of the following with 

respect to its ownership status: 

“S”—single ownership (the reporting entity is entirely owned by a single company which 

is not owned by any other company, e.g., it is not a subsidiary or division of another company). 

“W”—wholly owned (the reporting entity is entirely owned by a single company which 

is, itself, owned by another company, e.g., it is a subsidiary or division of another company). 
2-5 

“M”—multiple owners (the reporting entity is owned by more than one company).3 

Under Option 1, a reporter’s U.S. parent company is defined as the highest-level 

company, located in the United States, and with the largest ownership interest in the reporting 

entity as of December 31 of the reporting year. The U.S. parent company’s physical address is 

defined as the street, city, state and zip code of the U.S. parent company’s physical location. 

For the purposes of this proposed rule amendment, EPA is proposing to define a 

reporter’s primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code as the six-digit 

code that represents the reporter’s primary product/activity/service at the facility, as defined in 

"North American Industry Classification System Manual 2007," available from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service. The primary NAICS code is 

the principal source of revenue. EPA is proposing to define additional NAICS codes as those 

codes that correspond to product(s)/activity(s)/service(s) that provide economic profit, but that 

are not related to the principal source of revenue. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to require that reporters subject to the Mandatory GHG 

Reporting Rule indicate (by checking yes or no) whether some or all of the GHG emissions they 

report are from a cogeneration (also known as combined heat and power (CHP)) unit located at 

the facility. For the purposes of this proposal, a cogeneration unit is defined as “a unit that 

produces electric energy and useful thermal energy for industrial, commercial, or heating and 

cooling purposes, through the sequential [or simultaneous] use of the original fuel energy.4” 

Reporting Requirement under Option 2 

Under Option 2, the following data elements would be reported: 

 

• U.S. Parent Company Legal Name(s); 

• U.S. Parent Company Physical Address(es); 

• Percent of Ownership by each U.S. Parent Company; 

• Primary and other applicable NAICS Code(s); and 

• Facility Cogeneration. 

 

3

 This information, “S,” “W,” and “M” would not be required under Option 2. 

4

 40 CFR 72.2 
2-6 

Under Option 2, EPA proposes to define U.S. parent company(s) as the highest-level U.S. 

company(s) with an ownership interest in the reporting entity as of December 31 of the reporting 

year. The U.S. parent company’s physical address is defined as the street, city, state and zip 

code of the U.S. parent company’s physical location. All other reporting requirements under 

Option 2 are similar to Option 1 described in section 2.2.1, except that ownership status would 

not be required under option 2. 

2.2 Rational for Collecting Parent Company and NAICS code(s) 

The purpose of collecting the name and physical address of the U.S. parent company(s) 

on the annual reporting form for the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule is to assist in aggregating 

facility-based GHG emissions data to the corporate level. This additional data element would 

allow EPA to compile more comprehensive information on corporate GHG emissions and 

conduct a variety of analyses. The data collected under the proposed rule would inform EPA’s 

implementation of section 103(g) of the Clean Air Act regarding improvements in sector-based 

non-regulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing air pollutants. 

In addition, corporate parent and NAICS code data could assist EPA in developing and 

improving air pollution emission inventories. A more detailed understanding of the sources and 

operational categories of GHG emissions could lead to improvements in air pollution emissions 

information that is relied upon to develop effective control methods. The additional information 

may also inform regulatory strategies being evaluated by EPA. By requiring all facilities subject 

to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule to report the operation of cogeneration units at their 

facility, EPA would significantly broaden its knowledge regarding the current implementation of 

cogeneration in all sectors of the economy. By collecting this information annually, EPA would 

also be able to track changes in the use of this technology in individual sectors and across the 

entire U.S. economy. Information on the types and characteristics of facilities that employ 

cogeneration technologies and the performance of cogeneration units could be important to 

future development of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. 
3-1 

Section 3

FACILITY- AND SUPPLIER-LEVEL COST ANALYSIS 

EPA estimated costs of complying with each option included in this proposed rule. The 

cost analysis estimates the incremental contributions to total reporting burden expected under the 

Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule and compliance costs associated with reporting the data 

elements described above. EPA estimated compliance cost based on time facilities and suppliers 

spend meeting the proposed rule requirements and the associated labor wage rates. The cost 

analysis is based on industries currently subject to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule and does 

not account for facilities expected to be added to the program through upcoming supplemental 

proposals. 

3.1 Estimating the Loaded Hourly Wage Rates 

The personnel responsible for reporting the required information are likely to vary by 

industry sector and/or by facility. Table 3-1 provides estimates of the expected personnel titles, 

labor categories, and loaded hourly wage rates used in the OAR Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule

Regulatory Impact Analysis:5

Table 3-1 Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category

Personnel Type Hourly Wage Rate 

Management 

 electricity manager $88.79 

 refinery manager $101.31 

 industrial manager $71.03 

 lawyer $101.00 

Average Management $90.53 

Technical 

 electricity engineer/technician $60.84 

 refinery engineer/technician $63.89 

 industrial engineer/technician $55.20 

Average Technical $59.98 

Blended Wage Rate $60.22 

To reflect that both management and technical staff will be involved in reporting the 

above data elements, an overall blended wage rate was developed based on estimates from the 

 

5

 U.S. EPA, 2009. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final 

Rule (GHG Reporting). September. 
3-2 

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program for similar data element reporting. Management staff is 

estimated to be involved in approximately 0.8 percent of the reporting, while technical staff is 

likely to be needed for the remaining 99.2 percent. Thus, the blended wage rate used in this 

analysis is $60.22 per hour. 

3.2 Estimating Facility and Supplier Reporting Burden 

The burden estimates presented below are primarily based on EPA’s professional 

judgment. Under the proposed rule, affected facilities and suppliers would report U.S. parent 

company information in their annual GHG emissions report on an annual basis. It is assumed 

that more time will be required in the first year of reporting as the facility becomes familiar with 

the requirement and locates and enters the relevant information. In subsequent years, it is 

assumed that the information is pre-populated in a web application. Facilities will still need to 

spend time to review the information and in some cases may need to revise it. Therefore, staff 

will continue to spend time on the required data elements, but not as much as in the first year. 

3.2.1 U.S. Parent Company Name, Address, and Ownership Status 

Under Option 1 of the proposed rule reporters would provide the legal name and physical 

address of their highest-level U.S. parent company. EPA assumes that facility staff will obtain 

this information from elsewhere in the company by requesting the information via in-person 

request or a telephone call, or themselves checking files available to the staff elsewhere in the 

company. Once obtained, the information will be entered into the electronic reporting form and 

then reviewed as part of an overall review of the submission. 

The amount of time required to provide this information is estimated to be 40 minutes per 

facility in the first year and 30 minutes per facility in subsequent years. Under Option 1 the 

amount of time required to provide information is assumed to be constant across all facilities, 

irrespective of ownership type. 

Under Option 2, facilities and suppliers would report the legal names and physical 

addresses of all their U.S. parent companies together with each U.S. parent company’s 

percentage of ownership. To estimate the burden required to report names and addresses of U.S. 

parent companies under Option 2, we first assumed that the time required to report the name and 

address of one owner (i.e., a U.S. parent company) is the same as that to report the name and 

address of the parent under Option 1. Therefore, for reporters with multiple owners, the total 

time required to report the names and addresses of all U.S. parent companies under Option 2 

would exceed the time required to report the U.S. parent company with the largest ownership 

interest under Option 1. Specifically, reporting multiple U.S. parent company legal names and 
3-3 

physical addresses under Option 2 will require an additional 20 minutes per parent in the first 

year and 20 minutes per parent in subsequent years. 

Although reporting entities do not have to report their ownership status under Option 2, 

they will still need to determine their ownership structure in order to identify and rank by 

ownership all U.S. parent companies. The amount of time required to determine ownership 

structure and provide name and addresses is estimated to be 40 minutes per reporting entity in 

the first year and 30 minutes per reporting entity in subsequent years. Specifically, identifying 

the highest parent company legal name and physical address is estimated to require 20 minutes in 

the first and subsequent years, while determining and recording the type of ownership is 

estimated to take 20 minutes in the first year and 10 minutes in subsequent years. It is assumed a 

significant proportion of a facility’s effort in this investigation process will be determining its 

type of ownership (i.e. whether singly-, wholly-, or multiply-owned) in order to then rank its 

parent companies by percent ownership. 

The additional burden under Option 2 (20 minutes per owner) would apply only to 

reporters with multiple owners. As discussed in Section 4.1.2, EPA determined the frequency of 

reporters with multiple parents to estimate the total industry burden for Option 2. In short, EPA 

has assumed that electric utilities subject to reporting would have, on average, 3 owners; lack of 

readily available data required EPA to assume one corporate parent for the remaining industries. 

As noted above, Option 2 would require reporters to specify the percent ownership of 

each owner in addition to the legal name and physical address of multiple U.S. parent companies. 

To obtain information on percent of corporate ownership, facility staff is assumed either to 

consult with internal sources (e.g., legal or financial staff) or to call outside information sources, 

such as Dun and Bradstreet. Note that for electric utilities, the facility has already had to report 

this information to the Energy Information Administration on Form 860, so facility staff should 

already possess information on percent ownership.6 

An additional 5 minutes will be required to report and rank percent of corporate 

ownership for facilities with multiple owners in the first year and subsequent years. The total 

cost per facility under Option 2 is $40.78 in the first year and $30.74 in subsequent years. 

To summarize, Option 2 time burden is 40 minutes in the first year and 30 minutes in 

subsequent years for those reporting one U.S. parent company; time burden for those reporting 

 

6

 This data is collected in EIA Form 860, Schedule 4, and made publically available in the Annual Electric 

Generator Report database. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html 
3-4 

multiple U.S. parent companies is 85 minutes per facility or supplier in the first year and 75 

minutes per facility or supplier in subsequent years. Option 2 incurs an incremental time burden 

of 45 minutes per facility with multiple U.S. parent companies compared to Option 1 in the first 

year and in subsequent reporting years. Based on the information available for this analysis the 

average reporting cost per facility under Option 2 is $40.77 in the first year and $30.74 in all 

subsequent years. Table 3-2 summarizes the time burden estimates on a per facility basis for each 

option. 

Table 3-2. Summary of Burden Estimate Per Facility For Ownership, Parent Company 

Name(s), Address(es), and Percent Ownership. 

Option 1 Option 2 

Data Element Year 1 

Subsequent 

Years Year 1 Subsequent Years 

Ownership Status 20 10 20 10 

U.S. Parent Company Name and 

Address 20 20 20 20 

Percent Ownership N/A N/A 5a5

a

Total time burden 

Facilities with One Owner 40 30 40 30 

Facilities with More than One 

Owner 40 30 20+(20 * No. Owners)+5 = 85 

10+(20 * No. Owners)+5 

= 75 

aTime to report percent ownership applies only to facilities with multiple owners. 

Note: Under Option 2, burden estimated to report company name and address is multiplied by the number of owners. 

3.2.2 Primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and 

Cogeneration units 

EPA is proposing that reporters also provide their North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes and facility cogeneration under both Option 1 and 2. 

It is assumed that the reporting entity’s staff will obtain their NAICS code(s) from 

elsewhere in the company by in-person request, a telephone call, or themselves checking files 

available to the staff elsewhere in the company. Staff will also determine whether the facility 

energy consumption includes energy derived from cogeneration by making a phone call, 

checking files, or making an in-person information request. Once obtained, the information will 

be entered into the electronic reporting form and then reviewed as part of an overall review of 

the submission. All facilities and suppliers are required to report at least one NAICS code that 

corresponds to the facility’s principal revenue-generating operations, i.e. the facility’s primary 

NAICS code. 
3-5 

From an analysis of NAICS code reporting to the TRI program, over 99% of reporters 

listed 3 or fewer NAICS codes.7 Therefore, for the purposes of estimating the potential costs of 

this rulemaking, it is assumed that 3 NAICS codes will be reported per facility. The amount of 

time required for the facility to provide information for additional NAICS codes is proportional 

to the number of NAICS codes: each additional code is assumed to require the same reporting 

time as the primary NAICS code. 

The amount of time required at each facility to provide primary and other applicable 

NAICS code is estimated to be 10 minutes per NAICS code in the first year and 2.5 minutes per 

NAICS code in subsequent years. In addition, the amount of time required to determine whether 

a facility derives energy from cogeneration is estimated to be 10 minutes per facility in the first 

year and 2.5 minutes per facility in subsequent years. In total, the amount of time to report these 

data elements (3 NAICS codes plus cogeneration) is expected to be 40 minutes in the first year 

and 10 minutes in subsequent years. The reporting cost per facility is $40.15 in the first year and 

$10.04 in subsequent years for both Option 1 and Option 2. 

Table 3-3. Summary of Burden Estimate for NAICS and Cogeneration Per Facility 

(Minutes) 

Option 1 Option 2 

Data Element 

First Year Subsequent 

Years First Year Subsequent Years 

Primary Facility NAICS Code 10 2.5 10 2.5 

Two Additional NAICS Codes 20 5 20 5 

Facility Cogeneration 10 2.5 10 2.5 

Total Burden 40 10 40 10 

3.2.3 Summary of Burden Esitmate Per Facility 

In summary, the estimated total cost per facility under Option 1 is approximately $80 in 

the first year and $40 in subsequent reporting years. The estimated average total cost per facility 

under Option 2 is approximately $82 in the first year and $42 in subsequent reporting years. 

Under either option, facilities would have to have annual revenues of less than $8 thousand 

dollars a year for this rule to have significant economic impact. Table 3-4 summarizes the time 

burden estimates on a per facility basis. 

 

7

 99.5% of TRI reporters in all reporting years provided 3 or fewer NAICS codes. In RY2008, 98.9% of TRI 

reporters provided 3 or fewer NAICS codes. Source: TRI Public Data Releases. 

http://www.epa.gov/TRI/tridata/index.htm#pdr 
3-6 

Table 3-4. Summary of Burden Estimate Per Facility (Minutes) 

Option 1 Option 2 

Data Element First 

Year 

Subsequent 

Years First Year Subsequent Years 

U.S. Parent Company (for 

facilities with one owner) 40 30 40 30

U.S. Parent Company 

(incremental burden for 

facilities with multiple owners) 

- - 45 b 45 b 

NAICS Code(s) and 

Cogeneration 40 10 40 10 

Total time burden 

Facilities with One Owner 80 40 80 40 

Facilities with More than One 

Owner 80 40 125 85 

bTime burden for facilities with multiple U.S. Parent Companies. This estimate assumes the reporters have 3 U.S. 

parent companies. This additional burden does not apply to facilities with one U.S. parent company.
4-1 

Section 4

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

EPA has prepared this EIA to provide decision makers with a measure of the incremental 

costs of using industry resources to comply with the proposed rule. As noted in EPA’s (2000) 

Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, several tools are available to estimate costs and 

range from simple direct compliance cost options to the development of a more complex market 

analysis that estimates market changes (e.g., price and consumption) and economic welfare 

changes (e.g., changes in consumer and producer surplus). This EIA estimates the direct 

compliance costs per facility and supplier delineated by industry sectors and sources. 

In addition, the cost analysis is based on facilities and suppliers currently subject to the 

Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule and does not account for facilities and suppliers expected to be 

added to the program through upcoming supplemental proposals. The methods and assumptions 

used to estimate the compliance costs for facilities and suppliers currently subject to the rule 

would likewise apply to industries that may be added to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule 

program in the future. The addition of new facilities and suppliers would increase the total 

compliance costs in proportion to the increase of the reporting universe. Accordingly, EPA does 

not expect the burden for newly added industries to change the conclusions of this economic 

analysis. 

4.1 National Cost Estimates 

The total national cost under Option 1 is $877 thousand in the first year and $436 

thousand in subsequent years ($2006). This includes a public sector burden estimate of $85,000 

in the first year to modify the GHG reporting forms and $40,000 in subsequent years for program 

implementation and verification activities. Total national cost under Option 2 is $889 thousand in 

the first year and $443 thousand in subsequent years ($2006). Option 2 costs include a public 

sector burden estimate of $90,000 in the first year and $40,000 in subsequent years for program 

implementation and verification activities. 

Calculating the national compliance cost involves two steps. First, total industry 

compliance costs are calculated by multiplying the per-facility reporting cost (see Section 3.2.1 

and 3.2.2) by the number of facilities subject to the reporting requirements (see Table 4-1). EPA 

has estimated reporting costs for the initial and subsequent reporting years. 
4-2 

Table 4-1. Number of Facilities and Suppliers Required to Report GHG Emissions by 

Industry Sector 

Industry Number of 

Facilities Other Industries Number of Facilities 

Stationary Combustion 3,000 Cement 107 

Landfills 2,551 Lime 89

Natural Gas Suppliers 1,502 Petrochemical 80

Electricity Generation 1,108 Glass 55

Pulp and Paper 425 Nitric Acid 45

Petroleum Product Suppliers 315 Hydrogen 41

GHG Suppliers 167 Ammonia 23

Petroleum Refineries 150 Phosphoric Acid 14

Iron and Steel 121 Aluminum 14

Other 529 CO2 Suppliers 13

Total 9,868 Lead 13

 Ferroalloy 9 

 Titanium oxide 8

Zinc 5

Soda Ash 5

Adipic Acid 4

HCFC-22 3

Silicon Carbide 1

4.1.1 National Cost Estimate Under Option 1 

EPA assumed that the compliance costs are the same for each facility and supplier, 

regardless of industry. 

Summing the total industry cost for all industries and for each data element yields the 

national compliance cost estimate. Table 4-2 provides the national burden (i.e., estimate of labor 

hours) and compliance cost estimates for Option 1. Burden and costs are presented separately by 

data element (i.e. U.S. parent company information) for the first year of reporting and all 

subsequent years. 
4-3 

Table 4-2. Option 1: National Compliance Burden and Costs by Data Element and 

Reporting Year

Data Element by Year Reporting Burden 

(Hrs) 

Reporting Cost 

($2006) 

Reporting Cost 

per Facility 

U.S. Parent Company Name, Address, and Status 

 

First Year 6,579 $396,162 $40.15 

Subsequent Years 4,934 $297,121 $30.11 

Primary NAICS Code and Cogeneration 

 

First Year 6,579 $396,162 $40.15 

Subsequent Years 1,645 $99,040 $10.04 

National Totals – Option 1 

First Year 13,157 $792,324 $80.29 

Subsequent Years 6,579 $396,162 $40.14 

Note: Dividing total reporting costs by 9,868 facilities (see table 4-1) yields the per facility reporting costs estimates. Numbers 

may not add due to rounding. 

Approximately 9,868 facilities will incur roughly 13,157 hours and $792,000 overall to 

comply with the proposed rule in the first year and roughly 6,579 hours and $396,000 overall to 

comply with the proposed rule in subsequent years. Per facility, the cost amounts to 

approximately $80 in the first year and $40 in subsequent years.8 

4.1.2 National Cost Estimate: Option 2 

Option 2 considers how reporting costs might vary for industries with multiple U.S. 

parent companies. For example, the electric utility sector commonly includes facilities with 

multiple owners. Table 4-3 shows the distribution of the number of owners for reported electric 

generators in 2007. 

 

8

 EPA expects the costs would be similar for industries that may become subject to the mandatory reporting rule in 

the future. 
4-4 

Table 4-3. Facility Ownership in the Electric Utility Sector 

Number of 

Owners 

Number of 

Generators 

Percent of Total 

Generators 

Percent of Facilities 

with Multiple 

Owners 

1 1,280 86.96% - 

2 121 8.22% 63.02% 

3 29 1.97% 15.10% 

4 15 1.02% 7.81% 

5 8 0.54% 4.17% 

6 7 0.48% 3.65% 

7 2 0.14% 1.04% 

8 3 0.20% 1.56% 

9 1 0.07% 0.52% 

10 0 0.00% 0.00% 

11 0 0.00% 0.00% 

12 2 0.14% 1.04% 

13 1 0.07% 0.52% 

14 1 0.07% 0.52% 

15 0 0.00% 0.00% 

16 2 0.14% 1.04% 

Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Electric Generator Report 2007. Form EIA-860 Database Annual 

Electric Generator Report. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html. 

Based on an analysis of the EIA data, approximately 13 percent of the utilities reported 

multiple owners in 2007. Across this subset of electric utilities the average number of owners 

was three. 

In the other industry sectors subject to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, data are not 

readily available to estimate the number of facilities with more than one corporate owner. 

While multiple ownership is not uncommon in other sectors, no evidence has been found to 

quantify the frequency of multiple ownership in other sectors subject to the rule. Facilities and 

suppliers in other industries are still assumed to have only one U.S. parent company. Table 4-4 

provides the national burden (i.e., estimate of labor hours) and compliance cost estimates for 

Option 2. 
4-5 

Table 4-4. Option 2: National Compliance Burden and Costs by Data Element and 

Reporting Year 

Data Element by Year Reporting Burden 

(Hrs) 

Reporting Cost 

($2006) 

Reporting Cost 

per Facility 

U.S. Parent Company Name, Address, and Percent 

Ownership 

First Year 6,687 $402,689 $40.81 

Subsequent Years 5,042 $303,649 $30.77 

Primary NAICS Code and Cogeneration 

 

First Year 6,579 $396,162 $40.15 

Subsequent Years 1,645 $99,040 $10.04 

National Totals – Option 2 

First Year 13,266 $798,851 $80.95 

Subsequent Years 6,687 $402,689 $40.81 

Note: Dividing total reporting costs by 9,868 facilities (see table 4-1) yields the per-facility reporting costs estimate. Numbers 

may not add due to rounding. 

Under Option 2, the same 9,868 facilities will incur roughly 13,266 hours and $798,851 

overall to comply with the proposed rule in the first year and 6,687 hours and $402,689 overall 

to comply in subsequent years. Per facility, the cost amounts to approximately $81 in the first 

year and $41 in subsequent years. Table 4-5 presents the comparison of national burden and cost 

estimates for Options 1 and 2. 

Table 4-5. Comparison of Burden and Costs for Options 1 and 2 

Cost Analysis Result First Year 

Subsequent 

Years 

Total Labor Burden (hrs) 

Option 1 13,157 6,579 

Option 2 13,266 6,687 

+/- Change 108 108 

Total Costs ($) 

Option 1 $792,324 $396,162 

Option 2 $798,851 $402,689 

+/- Change 6,527 6,527 

Cost Per Facility ($/establishment) 

Option 1 $80.29 $40.15 

Option 2 $80.95 $40.81 

+/- Change $0.66 $0.66 

Given the relatively small number of facilities and suppliers assumed to be affected by 

the additional reporting burden under Option 2, the total national burden and compliance costs 

increased by approximately 1 percent in the first year and approximately 2 percent in subsequent 

years. The increase in subsequent years is greater than in the first year due to the assumption 

that the burden of reporting multiple U.S. parent companies and their respective percentages of 
4-6 

ownership remains constant over all years while the burden for reporting a single parent 

company decreases in the subsequent years. 

4.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis 

EPA anticipates the facility and supplier reporting burden may vary by the corporate 

structure complexity. As a result, EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis for Option 1 to assess 

what effect varying corporate ownership structure might have on the national costs estimates 

presented in Table 4-2. EPA developed the weighting scheme used to adjust original burden 

estimate described under Option 1. 

EPA developed the weighting scheme using firm and establishment data from the most 

recent (2006) Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB)9,10. The Census Bureau defines establishment 

as “a single physical location where business transactions take place and for which payroll and 

employment records are kept.” The Census Bureau defines the firm (i.e. enterprise) as a “group 

of one or more establishments under common ownership or control”. 

Using the SUSB data, a ratio of the number of establishments to firms was used as a 

proxy measure of corporate structure complexity across all industries. For example, a ratio of 

one establishment to one firm suggests the least complicated corporate structure, where each 

reporting facility would only have one parent company to report. Firms that own more facilities 

are more likely to have a more complex corporate structure (e.g. establishments per firm ratio 

greater than one) and a higher burden associated with reporting parent company. This ratio was 

calculated for each individual NAICS code presented in Table 2-1. 

A corporate structure index (see equation 1) was calculated by dividing the establishment 

per firm ratio by the median establishment ratio for all industries covered under the rule. 

(Eq 1.) Corporate Structure Index = 

Where: 

A = NAICS Specific Establishment to Firm (EST/FIRM) Ratio 

B = Median EST/FIRM Ratio for all industries covered under the rule 

An index value of one would mean the industry had an establishment per firm ratio that was 

equal to the sample median establishment per firm ratio. A value higher than one suggests the 

establishment per firm ratio was higher than the median industry (i.e., more complex); in contrast 

 

9

 U.S. Census Bureau. Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) - 2006. U.S. All Industries Data File. As obtained on 

December 12, 2009. Available at: http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/index.html. 

10 EPA used the SUSB data to support economic analysis of the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule. 
4-7 

a value less than one suggests the establishment per firm ratio was lower than the median 

industry (i.e., less complex). Calculated index values ranged between 0.70 and 4.59 with an 

average of 1.43. 

The index value was then multiplied by the existing burden estimates of 80 and 40 

minutes for the first and subsequent reporting years yielding an adjusted burden estimate that 

approximates the difficulty in indentifying U.S. parent company across each relative to the 

median industry. Equation 2 illustrates the calculation to estimate the cost of reporting the 

additional data elements. 

(Eq 2.) = 

Where: 

ERFi = Expected number of Reporting Facilities in Industry i

CSI = Corporate Structure Index (eq. 1) 

BE0, N = Burden Estimate for 1st year (80 mins) and subsequent years (40 mins) 

BWR = Blended Wage Rate 

Table 4-6 presents the scaling factors estimated for each industry in descending order 

along with each industry’s total compliance costs. Table 4-7 provides a comparison of the total 

national burden and costs for Option 1 with the sensitivity analysis results. 
4-8 

Table 4-6. Scaling Factors and Sensitivity Analysis Results of Option 1 by Industry 

Option 1 

Industry Adjusted Costs Scaling 

Factor First Year Subsequent years 

GHG Suppliers 4.59 $61,539.98 $30,769.99 

Hydrogen 4.59 $15,108.62 $7,554.31 

CO2 Suppliers 4.59 $4,790.54 $2,395.27 

HCFC-22 4.59 $1,105.51 $552.75 

Electricity Generation 4.46 $396,801.36 $198,400.68 

Natural Gas Suppliers 3.14 $378,128.93 $189,064.47 

Cement 1.66 $14,266.49 $7,133.25 

Lime 1.43 $10,226.85 $5,113.42 

Pulp and Paper 1.38 $47,100.08 $23,550.04 

Landfills 1.16 $238,403.40 $119,201.70 

Titanium oxide 1.09 $703.24 $351.62 

Petroleum Product Suppliers 1.08 $27,242.36 $13,621.18 

Petroleum Refineries 1.08 $12,972.55 $6,486.28 

Soda Ash 1.03 $415.04 $207.52 

Phosphoric Acid 1.00 $1,124.09 $562.05 

Petrochemical 0.99 $6,372.08 $3,186.04 

Adipic Acid 0.95 $305.22 $152.61 

Glass 0.89 $3,909.54 $1,954.77 

Stationary Combustion 0.88 $210,835.72 $105,417.86 

Aluminum 0.86 $971.79 $485.89 

Nitric Acid 0.83 $2,996.04 $1,498.02 

Ammonia 0.83 $1,531.31 $765.65 

Iron and Steel 0.82 $7,953.96 $3,976.98 

Lead 0.80 $836.09 $418.05 

Zinc 0.80 $321.57 $160.79 

Silicon Carbide 0.80 $64.23 $32.12 

Ferroalloy 0.70 $504.16 $252.08 

National Totals - $1,446,531 $723,265 

As shown in Table 4-6, the scaling factor approach increases the reporting burden and 

costs for some industries, while lowering the estimates for other industries. However, overall 

total reporting burden and costs for all industries increased by 83 percent. 

Table 4-7 summarizes change in first year and subsequent year costs. Specifically, first 

year costs for Option 1 grew to $1.45 million, up ~$721 thousand from the original estimate of 

$817 thousand. Similarly, subsequent year costs grew by ~$360 thousand from $396,000 to 

$756,000. 
4-9 

Table 4-7. Summary of Sensitivity Results for National Burden and Costs for Option 1 

National Totals Option 1 Adjusted 

Option 1 Difference 

Reporting Burden (Hrs) 

First Year 13,157 24,021 10,864 

Subsequent Years 6,579 12,011 5,432 

Reporting Cost ($2006) 

First Year $792,324 $1,446,531 $654,207 

Subsequent Years $396,162 $723,265 $327,104 

4.2 Small Entity Analysis 

EPA assessed the potential impacts of the rule on small entities (small businesses, 

governments, and non-profit organizations). The average ratio of annualized reporting program 

costs to revenues would be less than 0.01%. As a result, EPA has concluded that this action will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
5-1 

Section 5

STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS 

5.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 

This action is not a "significant regulatory action" under the terms of Executive Order 

(EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. 

Although this is not a significant economic rule, EPA prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed amendments to provide insights on the 

potential effects. This analysis is contained in the Economic Impact Analysis for this rule [EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0925]. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and is 

briefly summarized here. In the economic analysis, EPA has identified the proposed rule’s two 

alternative options as well as a summary of the compliance burden and the costs. The cost 

analysis, presented in Section 3, estimates that the total annualized burden as follows: 

Table 5-1. Cost Summary for Two Alternatives under the Proposed Rulemaking 

Cost Option 1 (in thousands, $2006) Option 2 (in thousands, $2006)

Year 1 Subsequent 

years 

Year 1 Subsequent 

years 

National compliance $792 $396 $799 $403 

Public $85 $40 $90 $40 

Total $877 $436 $889 $443 

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. 

Overall, EPA has concluded that the costs of the proposal to collect information on U.S. parent 

company(s), NAICS, and co-generation information as part of the mandatory GHG reporting rule 

are outweighed by the potential benefits of more comprehensive information about GHG 

emissions. 

5.2 Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection requirements for the proposed amendments have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document was previously prepared for the final 

Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule and was assigned EPA ICR number 2300.03. The information 

collection requirements of the proposed amendments to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule are 

documented in an additional ICR document, which was assigned EPA ICR number 2374.01. 
5-2 

The collection of additional information from facilities and suppliers reporting under the 

Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule identifying U.S. parent company(s), primary and other 

applicable NAICS codes, and an indication of whether or not the reported emissions include any 

emissions from a cogeneration unit, would assist EPA in aggregating facility level data to the 

corporate and sector levels. In addition, users of the data could compare emissions among 

facilities with and without cogeneration. This proposed rule amendment would provide 

information useful for a variety of policies, and potential nonregulatory and regulatory efforts, 

including informing the development of future climate change regulatory strategies. For 

example, through data collected under this proposed rule amendment, EPA would gain a better 

understanding of the aggregate GHG emissions of corporations and specific industry sectors. 

This information collection is mandatory and will be carried out under CAA section 114. 

Information identified and marked as confidential business information (CBI) will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. However, emissions 

information collected under CAA section 114 cannot be claimed as CBI and will be made public. 

The projected average annual cost and hour burden for non-federal respondents is about 

$528,000 and 8,800 hours under Option 1; and $535,000 and 8,900 hours under Option 2. The 

estimated average annual burden per response is 0.15 hour for either option; the proposed 

frequency of response is annual for all respondents that must comply with the proposed 

amendments; and the estimated average number of likely respondents per year is 9,868 under 

either option. The cost burden to respondents resulting from the collection of information 

includes the total capital cost annualized over the equipment’s expected useful life (averaging $ 

0), a total operation and maintenance component (averaging $0 per year), and a labor cost 

component (averaging $528,000 per year under Option 1; and $535,000 under Option 2). 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested options for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and 

OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments 

to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office 
5-3 

for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 

after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS 

AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final amendments will respond 

to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this 

proposal. 

5.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 

Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed amendments on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic impacts of the proposed amendments on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The additional per-entity costs are substantially smaller (less than $130 in year 1 

and $90.33 in subsequent years) than the burden for the overall rule is not enough to constitute a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly 

regulated by the proposed amendments include small businesses across all sectors encompassed 

by the rule, small governmental jurisdictions and small non-profits. We have determined that 

some small businesses will be affected because their production processes emit GHGs that must 

be reported, or because they have stationary combustion units on site that emit GHGs that must 

be reported. Small governments and small non-profits are generally affected because they have 

regulated landfills or stationary combustion units on site, or because they own a local distribution 

company subject to 40 CFR part 98, subpart NN (natural gas suppliers). 

At promulgation of the final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, EPA examined the impact 

on small entities (74 FR 56369). In addition, EPA described the steps the EPA took to reduce 

the impact of the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule on small entities (74 FR 56369). 
5-4 

5.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, 

requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal 

agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be 

significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials 

of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA 

regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, 

educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. 

The proposed amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. As shown in the Section 4, EPA estimated the several 

national cost estimates and found annual expenditures were below $100 million threshold 

($400,000 to $1.5 million, including the sensitivity analysis) Thus, the proposed amendments 

are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

The proposed amendments are also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. The proposed new rule requires facilities already subject to the Mandatory 

GHG Reporting Rule to provide additional data in each annual GHG report and the additional 

data elements required are the same for all facilities and suppliers (private and public). In 

addition, EPA’s small entity analysis shows the average ratio of annualized reporting program 

costs to revenues would be less than 0.01%. 

The proposed amendments to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule apply directly to 

facilities that supply fuel or chemicals that when used emit greenhouse gases, and to facilities 

that directly emit greenhouses gases. The proposed amendments do not apply to governmental 

entities unless the government entity owns a facility that directly emits greenhouse gases above 

threshold levels such as a landfill or large stationary combustion source. In addition, the 

proposed amendments do not impose any implementation responsibilities on State, local, or 

Tribal governments and it is not expected to increase the cost of existing regulatory programs 

managed by those governments. Thus, the impacts on governments affected by the proposed 

amendments are expected to be minimal. 
5-5 

5.5 Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

EO 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” “Policies 

that have Federalism implications” is defined in the EO to include regulations that have 

“substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government.” 

The proposed amendments do not have Federalism implications. They will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 

government, as specified in EO 13132. However, for a more detailed discussion about how the 

Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule relates to existing State programs, please see Section II of the 

preamble to the final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 56266). 

This proposed rule amendment applies directly to facilities that supply fuel or chemicals 

that when used emit greenhouse gases or facilities that directly emit greenhouses gases. They do 

not apply to governmental entities unless the government entity owns a facility that directly 

emits greenhouse gases above threshold levels such as a landfill or large stationary combustion 

source, so relatively few government facilities would be affected. This regulation also does not 

limit the power of States or localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG emissions. Thus, 

EO 13132 does not apply to the proposed amendments. 

5.6 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

The proposed amendments are not expected to have Tribal implications, as specified in 

EO 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed rule amendment applies directly to 

facilities that supply fuel or chemicals that when used emit greenhouse gases or facilities that 

directly emit greenhouses gases. The proposed amendments do not pose significant costs on 

either a per entity or national basis; few, if any, facilities expected to be affected by the proposed 

amendments are anticipated to be owned by Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to the proposed amendments. 

However, EPA sought opportunities to provide information to Tribal governments and 

representatives during development of the Mandatory GHG Reporting program, as documented 

in the preamble to the final GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 56371). 
5-6 

5.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under 

section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks. 

5.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), 

because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 

5.9 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 

(e.g., materials specifications, test options, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 

5.10 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that the proposed rule amendment will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 
5-7 

because they do not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. 

The proposed rule amendment does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or 

the environment because it addresses information collection and reporting.