### 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 Ind ian Tribal Governments .........................................

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

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 En ergy 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....... .............................. 5-6iii 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 Ow nership, Parent Company Name(s),

Address(es), and Percent Ownership...................... ............................................... 3-4 Table 3-3. Summary of Burden Estimate for NAICS and Cogene ration Per Facility (Minutes)3-5 Table 3-4. Summary of Burden Estimate Per Facility (Minute s) .............................................. 3-6 Table 4-1. Number of Facilities and Suppliers Required to R eport 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 Sec tor................................................. .... 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 Resul ts 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 Pr oposed Rulemaking .................... 5-11-1 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 subje ct 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 Classifica tion System (NAICS) code(s); and (3) an indication of whether or not any of their reported emiss ions are from a cogeneration unit. This proposed rule includes two alternative options for reportin g 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 othe r applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code(s); and an indicat ion 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 rep ort all parent companies and their respective percentages ownership.

Currently, the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, published on O ctober 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260), requires reporting by facilities that emit GHGs (“fac ilities”) 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 “report ers”) must submit annual GHG
reports. 1 A list of the information that all reporters must subm it 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 prim ary and other applicable NAICS code(s), or on whether any of their reported emissions are fro m a cogeneration unit. In this notice, EPA proposes amendments to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rul e that would require facilities and suppliers subject to the rule to provide this additional info rmation in their annual reports.

The balance of this report provides a summary of the propo sed rule’s two alternative options; definition of the affected entities; a ratio nal for additional information requirements; a summary of the compliance burden; the economic impact a nalysis; 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 th e Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The first option presented in today’s proposal would requi re facilities to report the following additional data fields: the legal name, physic al address, and ownership status of the highest-level U.S. parent company, primary and all other a pplicable NAICS codes, and indication of whether or not reported emissions include t hose from cogeneration. The second option presented in today’s proposal would collect the sa me information, except for ownership status but also require facilities and suppliers with mult iple 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 supplie rs 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 collec ted under this proposal would provide EPA with information necessary to compile corporate an d 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 a nd 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 G HG Reporting Rule due to a Congressional restriction prohibiting the expenditure of funds for this purpose. In addit ion, today’s proposed amendment does not apply to mobile sources because they are not covered under 40 CFR Part 98.2-2Table 2-1.Examples of Regulated Entities by CategoryCategoryNAICSCodesExamples of Regulated Entities211Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas.321Manufacturers of lumber and wood products.322Pulp and paper mills.325Chemical manufacturers.324Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal products.316, 326, 339Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products.331Steel works, blast furnaces.332Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring.336Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories.221Electric, gas, and sanitary services.622Health services.General Stationary Fuel CombustionSources611Educational services.Electricity Generation221112Fossil-fuel fired electric generating units, including unitsowned by Federal and municipalgovernments and units located in Indian Country.Adipic Acid Production325199Adipic acid manufacturing facilities.Aluminum Production331312Primary Aluminum production facilities.Ammonia Manufacturing325311Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia manufacturing facilities.Cement Production327310Portland Cement manufacturing plants.Ferroalloy Production331112Ferroalloys manufacturing facilities.Glass Production327211Flat glass manufacturing facilities.327213Glass container manufacturing facilities.327212Other pressed and blown glass and glassware manufacturing facilities.HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23Destruction325120Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities.Hydrogen Production325120Hydrogen manufacturing facilities.Iron and Steel Production331111Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic oxygenprocess furnace shops.Lead Production331419Primary lead smelting and refining facilities.331492Secondary lead smelting and refining facilities.Lime Production327410Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic hydrates manufacturing facilities.Nitric Acid Production325311Nitric acid manufacturing facilities.2-3CategoryNAICSCodesExamples of Regulated Entities32511Ethylene dichloride manufacturing facilities.Petrochemical Production325199Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, methanol manufacturing facilities.325110Ethylene manufacturing facilities.325182Carbon black manufacturing facilities.Petroleum Refineries324110Petroleum refineries.Phosphoric Acid Production325312Phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities.322110Pulp mills.Pulp and Paper Manufacturing322121Paper mills.322130Paperboard mills.Silicon Carbide Production327910Silicon carbide abrasives manufacturing facilities.325181Alkalies and chlorine manufacturing facilities.Soda Ash Manufacturing212391Soda ash, natural, mining and/or beneficiation.Titanium Dioxide Production325188Titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities.Zinc Production331419Primary zinc refining facilities.331492Zinc dust reclaiming facilities, recovering from scrap and/or alloying purchased metals.Municipal Solid Waste Landfills562212Solid waste landfills.221320Sewage treatment facilities.Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids Fuels211111Coal liquefaction at mine sites.Suppliers of Petroleum Products324110Petroleum refineries.221210Natural gas distribution facilities.Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs211112Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.Suppliers of Industrial GHGs325120Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)325120Industrial 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 aw are of that could be potentially affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in th e table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether an entity is affect ed by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, s ubpart 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 larges t 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 reporte d:

• 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 indicat e one of the following with respect to its ownership status:

“S”—single ownership (the reporting entity is entirely o wned by a single company which is not owned by any other company, e.g., it is not a subsi diary 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 subsi diary or division of another company).2-5

“M”—multiple owners (the reporting entity is owned by mo re 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 larges t 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 Classificatio n System (NAICS) code as the six-digit code that represents the reporter’s primary product/activit y/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 s ome or all of the GHG emissions they report are from a cogeneration (also known as combined hea t and power (CHP)) unit located at the facility. For the purposes of this proposal, a cogen eration unit is defined as “a unit that produces electric energy and useful thermal energy for in dustrial, 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 reporte d:

• 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 require d under Option 2.

4 40 CFR 72.22-6

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 ent ity 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 t he U.S. parent company(s) on the annual reporting form for the Mandatory GHG Report ing 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 r egarding improvements in sector-based non-regulatory strategies and technologies for preventin g or reducing air pollutants.

In addition, corporate parent and NAICS code data could ass ist EPA in developing and improving air pollution emission inventories. A more deta iled understanding of the sources and operational categories of GHG emissions could lead to impro vements in air pollution emissions information that is relied upon to develop effective cont rol methods. The additional information may also inform regulatory strategies being evaluated by EP A. By requiring all facilities subject to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule to report the operatio n 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 coll ecting this information annually, EPA would also be able to track changes in the use of this technolo gy in individual sectors and across the entire U.S. economy. Information on the types and char acteristics of facilities that employ cogeneration technologies and the performance of cogener ation 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 includ ed in this proposed rule. The cost analysis estimates the incremental contribution s to total reporting burden expected under the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule and compliance costs associ ated 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 associ ated 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 progra m through upcoming supplemental proposals.

3.1 Estimating the Loaded Hourly Wage Rates
The personnel responsible for reporting the required inform ation are likely to vary by industry sector and/or by facility. Table 3-1 provides estim ates of the expected personnel titles, labor categories, and loaded hourly wage rates used in the O AR 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 de veloped based on estimates from the

5 U.S. EPA, 2009. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Manda tory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Rule (GHG Reporting). September.3-2

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program for similar data e lement 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 o n EPA’s professional judgment. Under the proposed rule, affected facilities an d 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 info rmation. In subsequent years, it is assumed that the information is pre-populated in a web appl ication. Facilities will still need to spend time to review the information and in some cases m ay 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 th e legal name and physical address of their highest-level U.S. parent company. EPA a ssumes that facility staff will obtain this information from elsewhere in the company by request ing the information via in-person request or a telephone call, or themselves checking fil es available to the staff elsewhere in the company. Once obtained, the information will be entere d into the electronic reporting form and then reviewed as part of an overall review of the submiss ion.

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 le gal names and physical addresses of all their U.S. parent companies together wit h each U.S. parent company’s percentage of ownership. To estimate the burden required t o 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 th e same as that to report the name and address of the parent under Option 1. Therefore, for repo rters 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 c ompany with the largest ownership interest under Option 1. Specifically, reporting multiple U.S. parent company legal names and3-3

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 ow nership status under Option 2, they will still need to determine their ownership structur e in order to identify and rank by ownership all U.S. parent companies. The amount of time r equired to determine ownership structure and provide name and addresses is estimated to be 40 m inutes per reporting entity in the first year and 30 minutes per reporting entity in subseque nt 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 reco rding 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 mul tiply-owned) in order to then rank its parent companies by percent ownership.

The additional burden under Option 2 (20 minutes per owner) wo uld 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 i ndustry 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 corporat e 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 addr ess 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 utilit ies, the facility has already had to report this information to the Energy Information Administrat ion 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 per cent of corporate ownership for facilities with multiple owners in the f irst year and subsequent years. The total cost per facility under Option 2 is $40.78 in the first yea r 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 compa ny; 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.html3-4

multiple U.S. parent companies is 85 minutes per facility o r supplier in the first year and 75 minutes per facility or supplier in subsequent years. O ption 2 incurs an incremental time burden of 45 minutes per facility with multiple U.S. parent com panies compared to Option 1 in the first year and in subsequent reporting years. Based on the inf ormation 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 estima tes on a per facility basis for each option.

Table 3-2. Summary of Burden Estimate Per Facility For Own ership, 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 5 a 5 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

a Time to report percent ownership applies only to facilities with multiple owners.
Note: Under Option 2, burden estimated to report company name a nd address is multiplied by the number of owners.

3.2.2 Primary North American Industry Classification System (NAI CS) code and Cogeneration units
EPA is proposing that reporters also provide their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and facility cogeneration under bot h 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 telepho ne 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 cogenerati on 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 re viewed 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 pr ogram, 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 as sumed to require the same reporting time as the primary NAICS code.

The amount of time required at each facility to provide prim ary 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 o f time required to determine whether a facility derives energy from cogeneration is estimat ed to be 10 minutes per facility in the first year and 2.5 minutes per facility in subsequent years. In tot al, the amount of time to report these data elements (3 NAICS codes plus cogeneration) is expecte d 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 Cogener ation 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 econo mic 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 o r fewer NAICS codes. In RY2008, 98.9% of TRI reporters provided 3 or fewer NAICS codes. Source: TRI Pu blic Data Releases. http://www.epa.gov/TRI/tridata/index.htm#pdr3-6

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

b Time burden for facilities with multiple U.S. Parent Com panies. This estimate assumes the reporters have 3 U.S

. parent companies. This additional burden does not apply to facil ities with one U.S. parent company.4-1 Section 4
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

EPA has prepared this EIA to provide decision makers with a m easure of the incremental costs of using industry resources to comply with the propo sed 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 th e 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). T his EIA estimates the direct compliance costs per facility and supplier delineated by indu stry 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 faci lities 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 M andatory GHG Reporting Rule program in the future. The addition of new facilities a nd suppliers would increase the total compliance costs in proportion to the increase of th e reporting universe. Accordingly, EPA does not expect the burden for newly added industries to change t he conclusions of this economic analysis.

4.1 National Cost Estimates

The total national cost under Option 1 is $877 thousand in t he first year and $436 thousand in subsequent years ($2006). This includes a public se ctor burden estimate of $85,000 in the first year to modify the GHG reporting forms a nd $40,000 in subsequent years for program implementation and verification activities. Total natio nal cost under Option 2 is $889 thousand in the first year and $443 thousand in subsequent years ($2006). Opti on 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-fa cility reporting cost (see Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) by the number of facilities subject to the repor ting requirements (see Table 4-1). EPA has estimated reporting costs for the initial and subseque nt reporting years.4-2

Table 4-1. Number of Facilities and Suppliers Required t o 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 CO 2 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 fo r 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 th e national burden (i.e., estimate of labor hours) and compliance cost estimates for Option 1. Burde n and costs are presented separately by data element (i.e. U.S. parent company information) fo r 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 ta ble 4-1) yields the per facility reporting costs estimate s. 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 ro ughly 6,579 hours and $396,000 overall to comply with the proposed rule in subsequent years. Per fa cility, 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 in dustries with multiple U.S. parent companies. For example, the electric utility sec tor commonly includes facilities with multiple owners. Table 4-3 shows the distribution of th e number of owners for reported electric generators in 2007.

8 EPA expects the costs would be similar for industries t hat may become subject to the mandatory reporting ru le in the future.4-4

Table 4-3. Facility Ownership in the Electric Utility Sec tor

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 perc ent 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 faciliti es with more than one corporate owner. While multiple ownership is not uncommon in other sector s, no evidence has been found to quantify the frequency of multiple ownership in other secto rs 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 ho urs) 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 (s ee table 4-1) yields the per-facility reporting costs est imate. 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 com parison 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 s uppliers assumed to be affected by the additional reporting burden under Option 2, the total nati onal burden and compliance costs increased by approximately 1 percent in the first year and a pproximately 2 percent in subsequent years. The increase in subsequent years is greater tha n in the first year due to the assumption that the burden of reporting multiple U.S. parent companie s and their respective percentages of4-6

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 sensi tivity analysis for Option 1 to assess what effect varying corporate ownership structure might h ave on the national costs estimates presented in Table 4-2. EPA developed the weighting schem e used to adjust original burden estimate described under Option 1.

EPA developed the weighting scheme using firm and establishme nt 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 transac tions 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 con trol”.

Using the SUSB data, a ratio of the number of establishm ents to firms was used as a proxy measure of corporate structure complexity across a ll industries. For example, a ratio of one establishment to one firm suggests the least complica ted corporate structure, where each reporting facility would only have one parent company to rep ort. Firms that own more facilities are more likely to have a more complex corporate structur e (e.g. establishments per firm ratio greater than one) and a higher burden associated with repor ting parent company. This ratio was calculated for each individual NAICS code presented in Ta ble 2-1.

A corporate structure index (see equation 1) was calculat ed by dividing the establishment per firm ratio by the median establishment ratio for a ll industries covered under the rule.

(Eq 1.) Corporate Structure Index =

Where: A = NAICS Specific Establishment to Firm (EST/FIRM) Rat io B = Median EST/FIRM Ratio for all industries covered unde r the rule An index value of one would mean the industry had an est ablishment 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 media n 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 r anged between 0.70 and 4.59 with an average of 1.43.

The index value was then multiplied by the existing burden e stimates of 80 and 40 minutes for the first and subsequent reporting years yieldi ng 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: ERF i = Expected number of Reporting Facilities in Industry i CSI = Corporate Structure Index (eq. 1) BE 0, N = Burden Estimate for 1 st 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. Tabl e 4-7 provides a comparison of the total national burden and costs for Option 1 with the sensitivi ty analysis results.4-8

Table 4-6. Scaling Factors and Sensitivity Analysis Results of O ption 1 by Industry Option 1 Adjusted Costs Industry 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 increase s the reporting burden and costs for some industries, while lowering the estimate s for other industries. However, overall total reporting burden and costs for all industries increase d by 83 percent.

Table 4-7 summarizes change in first year and subsequent ye ar 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 t housand 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 r atio 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 substantia l 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" unde r 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 pr epared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with the proposed a mendments to provide insights on the potential effects. This analysis is contained in the E conomic Impact Analysis for this rule [EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0925]. A copy of the analysis is available in th e 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 compl iance burden and the costs. The cost analysis, presented in Section 3, estimates that the t otal annualized burden as follows:

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

Option 1 (in thousands, $2006) Option 2 (in thousands, $2006) Cost 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 propos al 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 compreh ensive information about GHG
emissions.

5.2 Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements for the propos ed 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 pr eviously prepared for the final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule and was assigned EPA ICR nu mber 2300.03. The information collection requirements of the proposed amendments to t he Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule are documented in an additional ICR document, which was assigne d EPA ICR number 2374.01.5-2

The collection of additional information from facili ties 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 potent ial nonregulatory and regulatory efforts, including informing the development of future climate change r egulatory strategies. For example, through data collected under this proposed rule amen dment, EPA would gain a better understanding of the aggregate GHG emissions of corporation s and specific industry sectors.

This information collection is mandatory and will be c arried out under CAA section 114.
Information identified and marked as confidential business inf ormation (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 claime d as CBI and will be made public.

The projected average annual cost and hour burden for non-fede ral 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 e ither 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 r espondents per year is 9,868 under either option. The cost burden to respondents resulting f rom the collection of information includes the total capital cost annualized over the equipm ent’s expected useful life (averaging $ 0), a total operation and maintenance component (averagi ng $0 per year), and a labor cost component (averaging $528,000 per year under Option 1; and $535,000 under O ption 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 currentl y valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are list ed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency’s need for this information, th e accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested options for minimizing res pondent 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 no tice for where to submit comments
to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Informat ion and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, A ttention: Desk Office5-3

for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision conce rning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL RE GISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB rec eives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The fi nal amendments will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collect ion requirements contained in this proposal.

5.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulator y flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirement s 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 entit ies. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jur isdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed amen dments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as define d by the Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdic tion that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special distri ct with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterpri se which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of the proposed am endments 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 business es across all sectors encompassed by the rule, small governmental jurisdictions and small n on-profits. We have determined that some small businesses will be affected because their pr oduction 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 sit e, or because they own a local distribution company subject to 40 CFR part 98, subpart NN (natural gas suppli ers).

At promulgation of the final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule , EPA examined the impact on small entities (74 FR 56369). In addition, EPA described th e steps the EPA took to reduce the impact of the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule on smal l 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 government s and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to sma ll governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory require ments. The plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timel y input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernme ntal mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with th e regulatory requirements.

The proposed amendments do not contain a Federal mandat e that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, an d tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. As shown in th e Section 4, EPA estimated the several national cost estimates and found annual expenditures wer e below $100 million threshold ($400,000 to $1.5 million, including the sensitivity analysis) T hus, the proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of U MRA.

The proposed amendments are also not subject to the requ irements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements tha t might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The proposed new rule requires facilit ies already subject to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule to provide additional data in each annua l 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 avera ge ratio of annualized reporting program
costs to revenues would be less than 0.01%.

The proposed amendments to the Mandatory GHG Reporting Ru le 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 amendm ents 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 respon sibilities 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 governme nts 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 E PA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and tim ely 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 E O to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the r elationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsi bilities among the various levels of government.”

The proposed amendments do not have Federalism implicati ons. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the rela tionship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsi bilities among the various levels of government, as specified in EO 13132. However, for a more de tailed discussion about how the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule relates to existing State progr ams, please see Section II of the preamble to the final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 56266)

.
This proposed rule amendment applies directly to faciliti es that supply fuel or chemicals that when used emit greenhouse gases or facilities that di rectly emit greenhouses gases. They do not apply to governmental entities unless the government e ntity owns a facility that directly emits greenhouse gases above threshold levels such as a l andfill 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 GH G 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 Tr ibal 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 a pplies 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, fa cilities expected to be affected by the proposed amendments are anticipated to be owned by Tribal governm ents. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed amendments.

However, EPA sought opportunities to provide information t o 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 thos e 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 r egulation. 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 (Ma y 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 Adv ancement 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 con sensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test options, samplin g 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 decide s 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 poli cy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federa l agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justi ce part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and ac tivities 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 o n minority or low-income populations5-7

because they do not affect the level of protection provide d 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 collecti on and reporting.