Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
Federal RegisterApr 10, 2009
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 86, 87, 89, 90, 94, 98, 600, 1033, 1039, 1042, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, and 1065
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508; FRL-8782-1]
RIN 2060-A079
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY:
EPA is proposing a regulation to require reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the economy. The rule would apply to fossil fuel suppliers and industrial gas suppliers, as well as to direct greenhouse gas emitters. The proposed rule does not require control of greenhouse gases, rather it requires only that sources above certain threshold levels monitor and report emissions.
DATES:
Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2009. There will be two public hearings. One hearing was held on April 6 and 7, 2009, in the Washington, DC, area (One Potomac Yard, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202). One hearing will be on April 16, 2009 in Sacramento, CA (Sacramento Convention Center, 1400 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814). The April 16, 2009 hearing will begin at 9 a.m. local time.
ADDRESSES:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508, by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail:
a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566-1741.
• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions:
Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The
http://www.regulations.gov
Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket:
All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; e-mail address:
GHGReportingRule@epa.gov.
For technical information, contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at telephone number: (877) 444-1188; or e-mail:
ghgmrr@epa.gov.
To obtain information about the public hearings or to register to speak at the hearings, please go to
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
Alternatively, contact Carole Cook at 202-343-9263.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Additional Information on Submitting Comments: To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207-J, Washington, DC, 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, e-mail
GHGReportingRule@epa.gov.
Regulated Entities. The Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.”). This is a proposed regulation. If finalized, these regulations would affect owners and operators of fuel and chemicals suppliers, direct emitters of GHGs and manufacturers of mobile sources and engines. Regulated categories and entities would include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble:
Table 1—Examples of Affected Entities by Category
Category
NAICS
Examples of affected facilities
General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
Facilities operating boilers, process heaters, incinerators, turbines, and internal combustion engines:
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.
611
Educational services.
Electricity Generation
221112
Fossil-fuel fired electric generating units, including units owned by Federal and municipal 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
Owners and operators of Portland Cement manufacturing plants.
Electronics Manufacturing
334111
Microcomputers manufacturing facilities.
334413
Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities.
334419
LCD unit screens manufacturing facilities.
MEMS manufacturing facilities.
Ethanol Production
325193
Ethyl alcohol manufacturing facilities.
Ferroalloy Production
331112
Ferroalloys manufacturing facilities.
Fluorinated GHG Production
325120
Industrial gases manufacturing facilities.
Food Processing
311611
Meat processing facilities.
311411
Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing facilities.
311421
Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
Glass Production
327211
Flat glass manufacturing facilities.
327213
Glass container manufacturing facilities.
327212
Other pressed and blown glass and glassware manufacturing facilities.
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 furnaces, basic oxygen 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 manufacturing facilities.
Magnesium Production
331419
Primary refiners of nonferrous metals by electrolytic methods.
331492
Secondary magnesium processing plants.
Nitric Acid Production
325311
Nitric acid manufacturing facilities.
Oil and Natural Gas Systems
486210
Pipeline transportation of natural gas.
221210
Natural gas distribution facilities.
325212
Synthetic rubber manufacturing facilities.
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.
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF
6
) from Electrical Equipment
221121
Electric bulk power transmission and control facilities.
Titanium Dioxide Production
325188
Titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities.
Underground Coal Mines
212113
Underground anthracite coal mining operations.
212112
Underground bituminous coal mining operations.
Zinc Production
331419
Primary zinc refining facilities.
331492
Zinc dust reclaiming facilities, recovering from scrap and/or alloying purchased metals.
Landfills
562212
Solid waste landfills.
221320
Sewage treatment facilities.
322110
Pulp mills.
322121
Paper mills.
322122
Newsprint mills.
322130
Paperboard mills.
311611
Meat processing facilities.
311411
Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing facilities.
311421
Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
Wastewater Treatment
322110
Pulp mills.
322121
Paper mills.
322122
Newsprint mills.
322130
Paperboard mills.
311611
Meat processing facilities.
311411
Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing facilities.
311421
Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
325193
Ethanol manufacturing facilities.
324110
Petroleum refineries.
Manure Management
112111
Beef cattle feedlots.
112120
Dairy cattle and milk production facilities.
112210
Hog and pig farms.
112310
Chicken egg production facilities.
112330
Turkey Production.
112320
Broilers and Other Meat type Chicken Production.
Suppliers of Coal and Coal-based Products
212111
Bituminous, and lignite coal surface mining facilities.
212113
Anthracite coal mining facilities.
212112
Underground bituminous coal mining 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 (CO
2
)
325120
Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.
Mobile Sources
336112
Light-duty vehicles and trucks manufacturing facilities.
333618
Heavy-duty, non-road, aircraft, locomotive, and marine diesel engine manufacturing.
336120
Heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing facilities.
336312
Small non-road, and marine spark-ignition engine manufacturing facilities.
336999
Personal watercraft manufacturing facilities.
336991
Motorcycle manufacturing facilities.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be regulated by this action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of facilities that EPA is now aware could be potentially affected by this action. Other types of facilities not listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
Many facilities that would be affected by the proposed rule have GHG emissions from multiple source categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble. Table 2 of this preamble has been developed as a guide to help potential reporters subject to the mandatory reporting rule identify the source categories (by subpart) that they may need to (1) consider in their facility applicability determination, and (2) include in their reporting. For each source category, activity, or facility type (e.g., electricity generation, aluminum production), Table 2 of this preamble identifies the subparts that are likely to be relevant. The table should only be seen as a guide. Additional subparts may be relevant for a given reporter. Similarly, not all listed subparts would be relevant for all reporters.
Table 2—Source Categories and Relevant Subparts
Source category (and main applicable subpart)
Subparts recommended for review to determine applicability
General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Electricity Generation
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Electricity Generation, Suppliers of CO
2
, Electric Power Systems.
Adipic Acid Production
Adipic Acid Production, General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Aluminum Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Ammonia Manufacturing
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Hydrogen, Nitric Acid, Petroleum Refineries, Suppliers of CO
2
.
Cement Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Suppliers of CO
2
.
Electronics Manufacturing
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Ethanol Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Landfills, Wastewater Treatment.
Ferroalloy Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Fluorinated GHG Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Food Processing
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Landfills, Wastewater Treatment.
Glass Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Hydrogen Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Petrochemicals, Petroleum Refineries, Suppliers of Industrial GHGs, Suppliers of CO
2
.
Iron and Steel Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Suppliers of CO
2
.
Lead Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Lime Manufacturing
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Magnesium Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Nitric Acid Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Adipic Acid.
Oil and Natural Gas Systems
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Petroleum Refineries, Suppliers of Petroleum Products, Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGL, Suppliers of CO
2
.
Petrochemical Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Ammonia, Petroleum Refineries.
Petroleum Refineries
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Hydrogen, Landfills, Wastewater Treatment, Suppliers of Petroleum Products.
Phosphoric Acid Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Landfills, Wastewater Treatment.
Silicon Carbide Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Soda Ash Manufacturing
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF
6
) from Electrical Equipment
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Titanium Dioxide Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Underground Coal Mines
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Suppliers of Coal.
Zinc Production
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Landfills
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Ethanol, Food Processing, Petroleum Refineries, Pulp and Paper.
Wastewater Treatment
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Ethanol, Food Processing, Petroleum Refineries, Pulp and Paper.
Manure Management
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Suppliers of Coal
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Underground Coal Mines.
Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels
Suppliers of Coal, Suppliers of Petroleum Products.
Suppliers of Petroleum Products
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Oil and Natural Gas Systems.
Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Oil and Natural Gas Systems, Suppliers of CO
2
.
Suppliers of Industrial GHGs
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Hydrogen Production, Suppliers of CO
2
.
Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
)
General Stationary Fuel Combustion, Electricity Generation, Ammonia, Cement, Hydrogen, Iron and Steel, Suppliers of Industrial GHGs.
Mobile Sources
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Acronyms and Abbreviations.
The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.
A/C air conditioning
AERR Air Emissions Reporting Rule
ANPR advance notice of proposed rulemaking
ARP Acid Rain Program
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI confidential business information
CCAR California Climate Action Registry
CDX central data exchange
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system(s)
CERR Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
cf cubic feet
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH
4
methane
CHP combined heat and power
CO
2
carbon dioxide
CO
2
e CO
2
-equivalent
COD chemical oxygen demand
DE destruction efficiency
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DE destruction efficiency
DRE destruction or removal efficiency
ECOS Environmental Council of the States
EGUs electrical generating units
EIA Energy Information Administration
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EO Executive Order
EOR enhanced oil recovery
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EU European Union
FTP Federal Test Procedure
FY2008 fiscal year 2008
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HCFC-22 chlorodifluoromethane (or CHClF
2
)
HCFCs hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HCl hydrogen chloride
HFC-23 trifluoromethane (or CHF
3
)
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HFEs hydrofluorinated ethers
HHV higher heating value
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO International Organization for Standardization
kg kilograms
LandGEM Landfill Gas Emissions Model
LCD liquid crystal display
LDCs local natural gas distribution companies
LEDs light emitting diodes
LNG liquified natural gas
LPG liquified petroleum gas
MEMS microelectricomechanical system
mmBtu/hr millions British thermal units per hour
MMTCO
2
e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration
MSW municipal solid waste
MW megawatts
N
2
O nitrous oxide
NAAQS national ambient air quality standard
NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NF
3
nitrogen trifluoride
NGLs natural gas liquids
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NSPS new source performance standards
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
O
3
ozone
ODS ozone-depleting substance(s)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ORIS Office of Regulatory Information Systems
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PIN personal identification number
POTWs publicly owned treatment works
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PV photovoltaic
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP quality assurance performance plan
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RIA regulatory impact analysis
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAR IPCC Second Assessment Report
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SF
6
sulfur hexafluoride
SFTP Supplemental Federal Test Procedure
SI international system of units
SIP State Implementation Plan
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TCR The Climate Registry
TOC total organic carbon
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TSCA Toxics Substances Control Act
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UIC underground injection control
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development
WCI Western Climate Initiative
WRI World Resources Institute
XML eXtensible Markup Language
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What Are GHGs?
B. What Is Climate Change?
C. Statutory Authority
D. Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks
E. How does this proposal relate to U.S. government and other climate change efforts?
F. How does this proposal relate to EPA's Climate Change ANPR?
G. How was this proposed rule developed?
II. Summary of Existing Federal, State, and Regional Emission Reporting Programs
A. Federal Voluntary GHG Programs
B. Federal Mandatory Reporting Programs
C. EPA Emissions Inventories
D. Regional and State Voluntary Programs for GHG Emissions Reporting
E. State and Regional Mandatory Programs for GHG Emissions Reporting and Reduction
F. How the Proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting Program is Different From the Federal and State Programs EPA Reviewed
III. Summary of the General Requirements of the Proposed Rule
A. Who must report?
B. Schedule for Reporting
C. What do I have to report?
D. How do I submit the report?
E. What records must I retain?
IV. Rationale for the General Reporting, Recordkeeping and Verification Requirements That Apply to All Source Categories
A. Rationale for Selection of GHGs To Report
B. Rationale for Selection of Source Categories To Report
C. Rationale for Selection of Thresholds
D. Rationale for Selection of Level of Reporting
E. Rationale for Selecting the Reporting Year
F. Rationale for Selecting the Frequency of Reporting
G. Rationale for the Emissions Information to Report
H. Rationale for Monitoring Requirements
I. Rationale for Selecting the Recordkeeping Requirements
J. Rationale for Verification Requirements
K. Rationale for Selection of Duration of the Program
V. Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping and Verification Requirements for Specific Source Categories
A. Overview of Reporting for Specific Source Categories
B. Electricity Purchases
C. General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
D. Electricity Generation
E. Adipic Acid Production
F. Aluminum Production
G. Ammonia Manufacturing
H. Cement Production
I. Electronics Manufacturing
J. Ethanol Production
K. Ferroalloy Production
L. Fluorinated GHG Production
M. Food Processing
N. Glass Production
O. HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction
P. Hydrogen Production
Q. Iron and Steel Production
R. Lead Production
S. Lime Manufacturing
T. Magnesium Production
U. Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonates
V. Nitric Acid Production
W. Oil and Natural Gas Systems
X. Petrochemical Production
Y. Petroleum Refineries
Z. Phosphoric Acid Production
AA. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
BB. Silicon Carbide Production
CC. Soda Ash Manufacturing
DD. Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF
6
) from Electrical Equipment
EE. Titanium Dioxide Production
FF. Underground Coal Mines
GG. Zinc Production
HH. Landfills
II. Wastewater Treatment
JJ. Manure Management
KK. Suppliers of Coal
LL. Suppliers of Coal-Based Liquid Fuels
MM. Suppliers of Petroleum Products
NN. Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids
OO. Suppliers of Industrial GHGs
PP. Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
)
QQ. Mobile Sources
VI. Collection, Management, and Dissemination of GHG Emissions Data
A. Purpose
B. Data Collection
C. Data Management
D. Data Dissemination
VII. Compliance and Enforcement
A. Compliance Assistance
B. Role of the States
C. Enforcement
VIII. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule
A. How are compliance costs estimated?
B. What are the costs of this proposed rule?
C. What are the economic impacts of the proposed rule?
D. What are the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities?
E. What are the benefits of the proposed rule for society?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
I. Background
The proposed rule would require reporting of annual emissions of carbon dioxide (CO
2
), methane (CH
4
), nitrous oxide (N
2
O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF
6
), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorochemicals (PFCs), and other fluorinated gases (e.g., nitrogen trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFEs)). The proposed rule would apply to certain downstream facilities that emit GHGs (primarily large facilities emitting 25,000 tpy of CO
2
equivalent GHG emissions or more) and to upstream suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs, as well as to manufacturers of vehicles and engines. Reporting would be at the facility level, except certain suppliers and vehicle and engine manufacturers would report at the corporate level.
This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed above in the Table of Contents. Throughout the preamble we explicitly request comment on a variety of issues. The paragraph below describes the layout of the preamble and provides a brief summary of each section. We also highlight particular issues on which, as indicated later in the preamble, we would specifically be interested in receiving comments.
The first section of this preamble contains the basic background information about greenhouse gases and climate change. It also describes the origin of this proposal, our legal authority and how this proposal relates to other efforts to address emissions of greenhouse gases. In this section we
would be particularly interested in receiving comment on the relationship between this proposal and other government efforts.
The second section of this preamble describes existing Federal, State, Regional mandatory and voluntary GHG reporting programs and how they are similar and different to this proposal. Again, similar to the previous section, we would like comments on the interrelationship of this proposal and existing GHG reporting programs.
The third section of this preamble provides an overview of the proposal itself, while the fourth section provides the rationale for each decision the Agency made in developing the proposal, including key design elements such as: (i) Source categories included, (ii) the level of reporting, (iii) applicability thresholds, (iv) reporting and monitoring methods, (v) verification, (vi) frequency and (vii) duration of reporting. Furthermore, in this section, EPA explains the distinction between upstream and downstream reporters, describes why it is necessary to collect data at multiple points, and provides information on how different data would be useful to inform different policies. As stated in the fourth section, we solicit comment on each design element of the proposal generally.
The fifth section of this preamble looks at the same key design elements for each of the source categories covered by the proposal. Thus, for example, there is a specific discussion regarding appropriate applicability thresholds, reporting and monitoring methodologies and reporting and recordkeeping requirements for each source category. Each source category describes the proposed options for each design element, as well as the other options considered. In addition to the general solicitation for comment on each design element generally and for each source category, throughout the fifth section there are specific issues highlighted on which we solicit comment. Please refer to the specific source category of interest for more details.
The sixth section of this preamble explains how EPA would collect, manage and disseminate the data, while the seventh section describes the approach to compliance and enforcement. In both sections the role of the States is discussed, as are requests for comment on that role.
Finally, the eighth section provides the summary of the impacts and costs from the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the last section walks through the various statutory and executive order requirements applicable to rulemakings.
A. What Are GHGs?
The proposed rule would cover the major GHGs that are directly emitted by human activities. These include CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, HFCs, PFCs, SF
6
, and other specified fluorinated compounds (e.g., HFEs) used in boutique applications such as electronics and anesthetics. These gases influence the climate system by trapping in the atmosphere heat that would otherwise escape to space. The GHGs vary in their capacity to trap heat. The GHGs also vary in terms of how long they remain in the atmosphere after being emitted, with the shortest-lived GHG remaining in the atmosphere for roughly a decade and the longest-lived GHG remaining for up to 50,000 years. Because of these long atmospheric lifetimes, all of the major GHGs become well mixed throughout the global atmosphere regardless of emission origin.
Global atmospheric CO
2
concentration increased about 35 percent from the pre-industrial era to 2005. The global atmospheric concentration of CH
4
has increased by 148 percent from pre-industrial levels, and the N
2
O concentration has increased 18 percent. The observed increase in concentration of these gases can be attributed primarily to human activities. The atmospheric concentration of industrial fluorinated gases—HFCs, PFCs, SF
6
—and other fluorinated compounds are relatively low but are increasing rapidly; these gases are entirely anthropogenic in origin.
Due to sheer quantity of emissions, CO
2
is the largest contributor to GHG concentrations followed by CH
4
. Combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) is the largest source of CO
2
emissions in the U.S. The other GHGs are emitted from a variety of activities. These emissions are compiled by EPA in the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
(Inventory) and reported to the UNFCCC
1
on an annual basis.
2
A more detailed discussion of the Inventory is provided in Section I.D below.
1
For more information about the UNFCCC, please refer to:
http://www.unfccc.int
. See Articles 4 and 12 of the UNFCCC treaty. Parties to the Convention, by ratifying, “shall develop, periodically update, publish and make available * * * national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using comparable methodologies * * *”.
2
The U.S. submits the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
to the Secretariat of the UNFCCC as an annual reporting requirement. The UNFCCC treaty, ratified by the U.S. in 1992, sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. The U.S. has submitted the GHG inventory to the United Nations every year since 1993. The annual
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
is consistent with national inventory data submitted by other UNFCCC Parties, and uses internationally accepted methods for its emission estimates.
Because GHGs have different heat trapping capacities, they are not directly comparable without translating them into common units. The GWP, a metric that incorporates both the heat-trapping ability and atmospheric lifetime of each GHG, can be used to develop comparable numbers by adjusting all GHGs relative to the GWP of CO
2
. When quantities of the different GHGs are multiplied by their GWPs, the different GHGs can be compared on a CO
2
e basis. The GWP of CO
2
is 1.0, and the GWP of other GHGs are expressed relative to CO
2
. For example, CH
4
has a GWP of 21, meaning each metric ton of CH
4
emissions would have 21 times as much impact on global warming (over a 100-year time horizon) as a metric ton of CO
2
emissions. The GWPs of the other gases are listed in the proposed rule, and range from the hundreds up to 23,900 for SF
6
.
3
Aggregating all GHGs on a CO
2
e basis at the source level allows a comparison of the total emissions of all the gases from one source with emissions from other sources.
3
EPA has chosen to use GWPs published in the IPCC SAR (furthermore referenced as “SAR GWP values”). The use of the SAR GWP values allows comparability of data collected in this proposed rule to the national GHG inventory that EPA compiles annually to meet U.S. commitments to the UNFCCC. To comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC, official emission estimates are to be reported by the U.S. and other countries using SAR GWP values. The UNFCCC reporting guidelines for national inventories were updated in 2002 but continue to require the use of GWPs from the SAR. The parties to the UNFCCC have also agreed to use GWPs based upon a 100-year time horizon although other time horizon values are available. For those fluorinated compounds included in this proposal that not listed in the SAR, EPA is using the most recent available GWPs, either the IPCC Third Assessment Report or Fourth Assessment Report. For more specific information about the GWP of specific GHGs, please see Table A-1 in the proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A.
For additional information about GHGs, climate change, climate science, etc. please see EPA's climate change Web site found at
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
.
B. What Is Climate Change?
Climate change refers to any significant changes in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period. Historically, natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and changes in the amount of energy released from the sun have affected the earth's climate. Beginning in the late 18th century, human activities associated with the industrial revolution
have also changed the composition of the earth's atmosphere and very likely are influencing the earth's climate.
4
The heating effect caused by the buildup of GHGs in our atmosphere enhances the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and adds to global warming. As global temperatures increase other elements of the climate system, such as precipitation, snow and ice cover, sea levels, and weather events, change. The term “climate change,” which encompasses these broader effects, is often used instead of “global warming.”
4
IPCCC: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, February 2, 2007 (
http://www.ipcc.ch/
).
According to the IPCC, warming of the climate system is “unequivocal,” as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74 °C (1.3 °F) over the last 100 years. Global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. U.S. temperatures also warmed during the 20th and into the 21st century; temperatures are now approximately 0.56 °C (1.0 °F) warmer than at the start of the 20th century, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
According to different scenarios assessed by the IPCC, average global temperature by end of this century is projected to increase by 1.8 to 4.0 °C (3.2 to 7.2 °F) compared to the average temperature in 1990. The uncertainty range of this estimate is 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F). Future projections show that, for most scenarios assuming no additional GHG emission reduction policies, atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are expected to continue climbing for most if not all of the remainder of this century, with associated increases in average temperature. Overall risk to human health, society and the environment increases with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate change.
For additional information about GHGs, climate change, climate science, etc. please see EPA's climate change Web site found at
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
.
C. Statutory Authority
On December 26, 2007, President Bush signed the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act which authorized funding for EPA to “develop and publish a draft rule not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and a final rule not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory reporting of GHG emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States.” Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat 1844, 2128 (2008).
The accompanying joint explanatory statement directed EPA to “use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act” to develop a mandatory GHG reporting rule. “The Agency is further directed to include in its rule reporting of emissions resulting from upstream production and downstream sources, to the extent that the Administrator deems it appropriate.” EPA has interpreted that language to confirm that it may be appropriate for the Agency to exercise its CAA authority to require reporting of the quantity of fuel or chemical that is produced or imported from upstream sources such as fuel suppliers, as well as reporting of emissions from facilities (downstream sources) that directly emit GHGs from their processes or from fuel combustion, as appropriate. The joint explanatory statement further states that “[t]he Administrator shall determine appropriate thresholds of emissions above which reporting is required, and how frequently reports shall be submitted to EPA. The Administrator shall have discretion to use existing reporting requirements for electric generating units” under section 821 of the 1990 CAA Amendments.
EPA is proposing this rule under its existing CAA authority. EPA also proposes that the rule require the reporting of the GHG emissions resulting from the quantity of fossil fuel or industrial gas that is produced or imported from upstream sources such as fuel suppliers, as well as reporting of GHG emissions from facilities (downstream sources) that directly emit GHGs from their processes or from fuel combustion, as appropriate. This proposed rule would also establish appropriate thresholds and frequency for reporting.
Section 114(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to,
inter alia
, require certain persons (see below) on a one-time, periodic or continuous basis to keep records, make reports, undertake monitoring, sample emissions, or provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require. This information may be required of any person who (i) owns or operates an emission source, (ii) manufactures control or process equipment, (iii) the Administrator believes may have information necessary for the purposes set forth in this section, or (iv) is subject to any requirement of the Act (except for manufacturers subject to certain title II requirements). The information may be required for the purposes of developing an implementation plan, an emission standard under sections 111, 112 or 129, determining if any person is in violation of any standard or requirement of an implementation plan or emissions standard, or “carrying out any provision” of the Act (except for a provision of title II with respect to manufacturers of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines).
5
Section 208 of the CAA provides EPA with similar broad authority regarding the manufacturers of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, and other persons subject to the requirements of parts A and C of title II.
5
Although there are exclusions in section 114(a)(1) regarding certain title II requirements applicable to manufacturers of new motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, section 208 authorizes the gathering of information related to those areas.
The scope of the persons potentially subject to a section 114(a)(1) information request (e.g., a person “who the Administrator believes may have information necessary for the purposes set forth in” section 114(a)) and the reach of the phrase “carrying out any provision” of the Act are quite broad. EPA's authority to request information reaches to a source not subject to the CAA, and may be used for purposes relevant to any provision of the Act. Thus, for example, utilizing sections 114 and 208, EPA could gather information relevant to carrying out provisions involving research (e.g., section 103(g)); evaluating and setting standards (e.g., section 111); and endangerment determinations contained in specific provisions of the Act (e.g., 202); as well as other programs.
Given the broad scope of sections 114 and 208 of the CAA, it is appropriate for EPA to gather the information required by this rule because such information is relevant to EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. For example, emissions from direct emitters should inform decisions about whether and how to use section 111 to establish NSPS for various source categories emitting GHGs, including whether there are any additional categories of sources that should be listed under section 111(b). Similarly, the information required of manufacturers of mobile
sources should support decisions regarding treatment of those sources under sections 202, 213 or 231 of the CAA. In addition, the information from fuel suppliers would be relevant in analyzing whether to proceed, and particular options for how to proceed, under section 211(c) regarding fuels, or to inform action concerning downstream sources under a variety of Title I or Title II provisions. For example, the geographic distribution, production volumes and characteristics of various fuel types and subtypes may also prove useful is setting NSPS or Best Available Control Technology limits for some combustion sources. Transportation distances from fuel sources to end users may be useful in evaluating cost effectiveness of various fuel choices, increases in transportation emissions that may be associated with various fuel choices, as well as the overall impact on energy usage and availability. The data overall also would inform EPA's implementation of section 103(g) of the CAA regarding improvements in nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing air pollutants. This section, which specifically mentions CO
2
, highlights energy conservation, end-use efficiency and fuel-switching as possible strategies for consideration and the type of information collected under this rule would be relevant. The above discussion is not a comprehensive listing of all the possible ways the information collected under this rule could assist EPA in carrying out any provision of the CAA. Rather it illustrates how the information request fits within the parameters of EPA's CAA authority.
D. Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks
The
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory)
, prepared by EPA's Office of Atmospheric Programs in coordination with the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, is an impartial, policy-neutral report that tracks annual GHG emissions. The annual report presents historical U.S. emissions of CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF
6
.
The U.S. submits the Inventory to the Secretariat of the UNFCCC as an annual reporting requirement. The UNFCCC treaty, ratified by the U.S. in 1992, sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. The U.S. has submitted the GHG inventory to the United Nations every year since 1993. The annual Inventory is consistent with national inventory data submitted by other UNFCCC Parties, and uses internationally accepted methods for its emission estimates.
In preparing the annual Inventory, EPA leads an interagency team that includes DOE, USDA, DOT, DOD, the State Department, and others. EPA collaborates with hundreds of experts representing more than a dozen Federal agencies, academic institutions, industry associations, consultants, and environmental organizations. The Inventory is peer-reviewed annually by domestic experts, undergoes a 30-day public comment period, and is also peer-reviewed annually by UNFCCC review teams.
The most recent GHG inventory submitted to the UNFCCC, the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006
(April 2008), estimated that total U.S. GHG emissions were 7,054.2 million metric tons of CO
2
e in 2006. Overall emissions have grown by 15 percent from 1990 to 2006. CO
2
emissions have increased by 18 percent since 1990. CH
4
emissions have decreased by 8 percent since 1990, while N
2
O emissions have decreased by 4 percent since 1990. Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF
6
have increased by 64 percent since 1990. The combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., petroleum, coal, and natural gas) was the largest source of GHG emissions in the U.S., and accounted for approximately 80 percent of total CO
2
e emissions.
The Inventory is a comprehensive top-down national assessment of national GHG emissions, and it uses top-down national energy data and other national statistics (e.g., on agriculture). To achieve the goal of comprehensive national emissions coverage for reporting under the UNFCCC, most GHG emissions in the report are calculated via activity data from national-level databases, statistics, and surveys. The use of the aggregated national data means that the national emissions estimates are not broken-down at the geographic or facility level. In contrast, this reporting rule focuses on bottom-up data and individual sources above appropriate thresholds. Although it would provide more specific data, it would not provide full coverage of total annual U.S. GHG emissions, as is required in the development of the Inventory in reporting to the UNFCCC.
The mandatory GHG reporting rule would help to improve the development of future national inventories for particular source categories or sectors by advancing the understanding of emission processes and monitoring methodologies. Facility, unit, and process level GHG emissions data for industrial sources would improve the accuracy of the Inventory by confirming the national statistics and emission estimation methodologies used to develop the top-down inventory. The results can indicate shortcomings in the national statistics and identify where adjustments may be needed.
Therefore, although the data collected under this rule would not replace the system in place to produce the comprehensive annual national Inventory, it can serve as a useful tool to better improve the accuracy of future national-level inventories.
At the same time, EPA solicits comment on whether the submission of the Inventory to the UNFCCC could be utilized to satisfy the requirements of the rule promulgated by EPA pursuant to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
For more information about the Inventory, please refer to the following Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
.
E. How does this proposal relate to U.S. government and other climate change efforts?
The proposed mandatory GHG reporting program would provide EPA, other government agencies, and outside stakeholders with economy-wide data on facility-level (and in some cases corporate-level) GHG emissions. Accurate and timely information on GHG emissions is essential for informing some future climate change policy decisions. Although additional data collection (e.g., for other source categories such as indirect emissions or offsets) may be required as the development of climate policies evolves, the data collected in this rule would provide useful information for a variety of policies. For example, through data collected under this rule, EPA would gain a better understanding of the relative emissions of specific industries, and the distribution of emissions from individual facilities within those industries. The facility-specific data would also improve our understanding of the factors that influence GHG emission rates and actions that facilities are already taking to reduce emissions. In addition, the data collected on some source categories such as landfills and manure management, which can be covered by the CAA, could also potentially help inform offset program design by providing fundamental data on current baseline emissions for these categories.
Through this rulemaking, EPA would be able to track the trend of emissions from industries and facilities within
industries over time, particularly in response to policies and potential regulations. The data collected by this rule would also improve the U.S. government's ability to formulate a set of climate change policy options and to assess which industries would be affected, and how these industries would be affected by the options. Finally, EPA's experience with other reporting programs is that such programs raise awareness of emissions among reporters and other stakeholders, and thus contribute to efforts to identify reduction opportunities and carry them out.
The goal is to have this GHG reporting program supplement and complement, rather than duplicate, U.S. government and other GHG programs (
e.g.
, State and Regional based programs). As discussed in Section I.D of this preamble, EPA anticipates that facility-level GHG emissions data would lead to improvements in the quality of the Inventory.
As discussed in Section II of this preamble, a number of EPA voluntary partnership programs include a GHG emissions and/or reductions reporting component (e.g., Climate Leaders, the Natural Gas STAR program). Because this mandatory reporting program would have much broader coverage than the voluntary programs, it would help EPA learn more about emissions from facilities not currently included in these programs and broaden coverage of these industries.
Also discussed in Section II of this preamble, DOE EIA implements a voluntary GHG registry under section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act. Under EIA's “1605(b) program,” reporters can choose to prepare an entity-wide GHG inventory and identify specific GHG reductions made by the entity.
6
EPA's proposed mandatory GHG program would have a much broader set of reporters included, primarily at the facility
7
rather than entity-level, but this proposed rule is not designed with the specific intent of reporting of emission reductions, as is the 1605(b) program.
6
Under the 1605(b) program an “entity” is defined as “the whole or part of any business, institution, organization or household that is recognized as an entity under any U.S. Federal, State or local law that applies to it; is located, at least in part, in the U.S.; and whose operations affect U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.” (
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/
)
7
For the purposes of this proposal, facility means any physical property, plant, building, structure, source, or stationary equipment located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties in actual physical contact or separated solely by a public roadway or other public right-of-way and under common ownership or common control, that emits or may emit any greenhouse gas. Operators of military installations may classify such installations as more than a single facility based on distinct and independent functional groupings within contiguous military properties.
Again, in Section II, existing State and Regional GHG reporting and reduction programs are summarized. Many of those programs may be broader in scope and more aggressive in implementation. States collecting that additional information may have determined that types of data not collected by this proposal are necessary to implement a variety of climate efforts. While EPA's proposal was specifically developed in response to the Appropriations Act, we also acknowledge, similar to the States, there may be a need to collect additional data from sources subject to this rule as well as other sources depending on the types of policies the Agency is developing and implementing (
e.g.
, indirect emissions and offsets). Addressing climate change may require a suite of policies and programs and this proposal for a mandatory reporting program is just one effort to collect information necessary to inform those policies. There may well be subsequent efforts depending on future policy direction and/or requests from Congress.
F. How does this proposal relate to EPA's Climate Change ANPR?
On July 30, 2008, EPA published an ANPR on “Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act” (73 FR 44354). The ANPR presented information relevant to, and solicited public comment on, issues regarding the potential regulation of GHGs under the CAA, including EPA's response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Massachusetts
v.
EPA
. 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007). EPA's proposing the mandatory GHG reporting rule does not indicate that EPA has made any final decisions related to the questions identified in the ANPR. Any information collected under the mandatory GHG reporting program would assist EPA and others in developing future climate policy.
8
8
At this time, a regulation requiring the reporting of GHG emissions and emissions-related data under CAA sections 114 and 208 does not trigger the need for EPA to develop or revise regulations under any other section of the CAA, including the PSD program. See memorandum entitled “EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered By Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program” (Dec. 18, 2008). EPA is reconsidering this memorandum and will be seeking public comment on the issues raised in it. That proceeding, not this rulemaking, would be the appropriate venue for submitting comments on the issue of whether monitoring regulations under the CAA should trigger the PSD program.
G. How was this proposed rule developed?
In response to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment, EPA has developed this proposed rulemaking. The components of this development are explained in the following subsections.
1. Identifying the Goals of the GHG Reporting System
The mandatory reporting program would provide comprehensive and accurate data which would inform future climate change policies. Potential future climate policies include research and development initiatives, economic incentives, new or expanded voluntary programs, adaptation strategies, emission standards, a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade program. Because we do not know at this time the specific policies that may be adopted, the data reported through the mandatory reporting system should be of sufficient quality to support a range of approaches. Also, consistent with the Appropriations Act, the reporting rule proposes to cover a broad range of sectors of the economy.
To these ends, we identified the following goals of the mandatory reporting system:
• Obtain data that is of sufficient quality that it can be used to support a range of future climate change policies and regulations.
• Balance the rule coverage to maximize the amount of emissions reported while excluding small emitters.
• Create reporting requirements that are consistent with existing GHG reporting programs by using existing GHG emission estimation and reporting methodologies to reduce reporting burden, where feasible.
2. Developing the Proposed Rule
In order to ensure a comprehensive consideration of GHG emissions, EPA organized the development of the proposal around seven categories of processes that emit GHGs: Downstream sources of emissions: (1) Fossil Fuel Combustion: Stationary, (2) Fossil Fuel Combustion: Mobile, (3) Industrial Processes, (4) Fossil Fuel Fugitive
9
Emissions, (5) Biological Processes and Upstream sources of emissions: (6) Fuel
Suppliers, and (7) Industrial GHG Suppliers.
9
The term “fugitive” often refers to emissions that cannot reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent or other functionally equivalent opening. This definition of fugitives is used throughout the preamble, except in Section W Oil and Natural Gas Systems, which uses a slightly modified definition based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
For each category, EPA evaluated the requirements of existing GHG reporting programs, obtained input from stakeholders, analyzed reporting options, and developed the general reporting requirements and specific requirements for each of the GHG emitting processes.
3. Evaluation of Existing GHG Reporting Programs
A number of State and regional GHG reporting systems currently are in place or under development. EPA's goal is to develop a reporting rule that, to the extent possible and appropriate, would rely on similar protocols and formats of the existing programs and, therefore, reduce the burden of reporting for all parties involved. Therefore, each of the work groups performed a comprehensive review of existing voluntary and mandatory GHG reporting programs, as well as guidance documents for quantifying GHG emissions from specific sources. These GHG reporting programs and guidance documents included the following:
• International programs, including the IPCC, the EU Emissions Trading System, and the Environment Canada reporting rule;
• U.S. national programs, such as the U.S. GHG inventory, the ARP, voluntary GHG partnership programs (
e.g.
, Natural Gas STAR), and the DOE 1605(b) voluntary GHG registry;
• State and regional GHG reporting programs, such as TCR, RGGI, and programs in California, New Mexico, and New Jersey;
• Reporting protocols developed by nongovernmental organizations, such as WRI/WBCSD; and
• Programs from industrial trade organizations, such as the American Petroleum Institute's Compendium of GHG Estimation Methodologies for the Oil and Gas Industry and the Cement Sustainability Initiative's CO
2
Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, developed by WBCSD.
In reviewing these programs, we analyzed the sectors covered, thresholds for reporting, approach to indirect emissions reporting, the monitoring or emission estimating methods used, the measures to assure the quality of the reported data, the point of monitoring, data input needs, and information required to be reported and/or retained. We analyzed these provisions for suitability to a mandatory, Federal GHG reporting program, and compiled the information. The full review of existing GHG reporting programs and guidance may be found in the docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-054. Section II of this preamble summarizes the fundamental elements of these programs.
4. Stakeholder Outreach To Identify Reporting Issues
Early in the development process, we conducted a proactive communications outreach program to inform the public about the rule development effort. We solicited input and maintained an open door policy for those interested in discussing the rulemaking. Since January 2008, EPA staff held more than 100 meetings with over 250 stakeholders. These stakeholders included:
• Trade associations and firms in potentially affected industries/sectors;
• State, local, and Tribal environmental control agencies and regional air quality planning organizations;
• State and regional organizations already involved in GHG emissions reporting, such as TCR, CARB, and WCI;
• Environmental groups and other nongovernmental organizations.
• We also met with DOE and USDA which have programs relevant to GHG emissions.
During the meetings, we shared information about the statutory requirements and timetable for developing a rule. Stakeholders were encouraged to provide input on key issues. Examples of topics discussed were, existing GHG monitoring and reporting programs and lessons learned, thresholds for reporting, schedule for reporting, scope of reporting, handling of confidential data, data verification, and the role of States in administering the program. As needed, the technical work groups followed up with these stakeholder groups on a variety of methodological, technical, and policy issues. EPA staff also provided information to Tribes through conference calls with different Indian working groups and organizations at EPA and through individual calls with Tribal board members of TCR.
For a full list of organizations EPA met with during development of this proposal, see the memo found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-055.
II. Summary of Existing Federal, State, and Regional Emission Reporting Programs
A number of voluntary and mandatory GHG programs already exist or are being developed at the State, Regional, and Federal levels. These programs have different scopes and purposes. Many focus on GHG emission reduction, whereas others are purely reporting programs. In addition to the GHG programs, other Federal emission reporting programs and emission inventories are relevant to the proposed GHG reporting rule. Several of these programs are summarized in this section.
In developing the proposed rule, we carefully reviewed the existing reporting programs, particularly with respect to emissions sources covered, thresholds, monitoring methods, frequency of reporting and verification. States may have, or intend to develop, reporting programs that are broader in scope or are more aggressive in implementation because those programs are either components of established reduction programs (e.g., cap and trade) or being used to design and inform specific complementary measures (e.g., energy efficiency). EPA has benefitted from the leadership the States have shown in developing these programs and their experiences. Discussions with States that have already implemented programs have been especially instructive. Where possible, we built upon concepts in existing Federal and State programs in developing the mandatory GHG reporting rule.
A. Federal Voluntary GHG Programs
EPA and other Federal agencies operate a number of voluntary GHG reporting and reduction programs that EPA reviewed when developing this proposal, including Climate Leaders, several Non-CO
2
voluntary programs, the CHP partnership, the SmartWay Transport Partnership program, the National Environmental Performance Track Partnership, and the DOE 1605(b) voluntary GHG registry. There are several other Federal voluntary programs to encourage emissions reductions, clean energy, or energy efficiency, and this summary does not cover them all. This summary focuses on programs that include voluntary GHG emission inventories or reporting of GHG emission reduction activities for sectors covered by this proposed rulemaking.
Climate Leaders.
10
Climate Leaders is an EPA partnership program that works with companies to develop GHG reduction strategies. Over 250 industry partners in a wide range of sectors have joined. Partner companies complete a corporate-wide inventory of GHG emissions and develop an inventory management plan using Climate Leaders protocols. Each company sets GHG reductions goals and submits to EPA an
annual GHG emissions inventory documenting their progress. The annual reporting form provides corporate-wide emissions by type of emissions source.
10
For more information about the Climate Leaders program please see:
http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/
.
Non-CO
2
Voluntary Partnership Programs.
11
Since the 1990s, EPA has operated a number of non-CO
2
voluntary partnership programs aimed at reducing emissions from GHGs such as CH
4
, SF
6
6
, and PFCs. There are four sector-specific voluntary CH
4
reduction programs: Natural Gas STAR, Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Coalbed Methane Outreach Program and AgSTAR. In addition, there are sector-specific voluntary emission reduction partnerships for high GWP gases. The Natural Gas STAR partnership encourages companies across the natural gas and oil industries to adopt practices that reduce CH
4
emissions. The Landfill Methane Outreach Program and Coalbed Methane Outreach Program encourage voluntary capture and use of landfill and coal mine CH
4
, respectively, to generate electricity or other useful energy. These partnerships focus on achieving CH
4
reductions. Industry partners voluntarily provide technical information on projects they undertake to reduce CH
4
emissions on an annual basis, but they do not submit CH
4
emissions inventories. AgSTAR encourages beneficial use of agricultural CH
4
but does not have partner reporting requirements.
11
For more information about the Non-CO
2
Voluntary Partnership Programs please see:
http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/voluntaryprograms.html
.
There are two sector specific partnerships to reduce SF
6
emissions: The SF
6
Emission Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems, with over 80 participating utilities, and an SF
6
Emission Reduction Partnership for the Magnesium Industry. Partners in these programs implement practices to reduce SF
6
emissions and prepare corporate-wide annual inventories of SF
6
emissions using protocols and reporting tools developed by EPA. There are also two partnerships focused on PFCs. The Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership promotes technically feasible and cost effective actions to reduce PFC emissions. Industry partners track and report PFC emissions reductions. Similarly, the Semiconductor Industry Association and EPA formed a partnership to reduce PFC emissions. A third party compiles data from participating semiconductor companies and submits an aggregate (not company-specific) annual PFC emissions report.
CHP Partnership.
12
The CHP Partnership is an EPA partnership that cuts across sectors. It encourages use of CHP technologies to generate electricity and heat from the same fuel source, thereby increasing energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions from fuel combustion. Corporate and institutional partners provide data on existing and new CHP projects, but do not submit emissions inventories.
12
For more information about the CHP Partnership please see:
http://www.epa.gov/chp/
.
SmartWay Transport Partnership.
13
The SmartWay Transport Partnership program is a voluntary partnership between freight industry stakeholders and EPA to promote fuel efficiency improvements and GHG emissions reductions. Over 900 companies have joined including freight carriers (railroads and trucking fleets) and shipping companies. Carrier and shipping companies commit to measuring and improving the efficiency of their freight operations using EPA-developed tools that quantify the benefits of a number of fuel-saving strategies. Companies report progress annually. The GHG data that carrier companies report to EPA is discussed further in Section V.QQ.4b of this preamble.
13
For more information about SmartWay please see:
http://www.epa.gov/smartway/
.
National Environmental Performance Track Partnership.
14
The Performance Track Partnership is a voluntary partnership that recognizes and rewards private and public facilities that demonstrate strong environmental performance beyond current requirements. Performance Track is designed to augment the existing regulatory system by creating incentives for facilities to achieve environmental results beyond those required by law. To qualify, applicants must have implemented an independently-assessed environmental management system, have a record of sustained compliance with environmental laws and regulations, commit to achieving measurable environmental results that go beyond compliance, and provide information to the local community on their environmental activities. Members are subject to the same legal requirements as other regulated facilities. In some cases, EPA and states have reduced routine reporting or given some flexibility to program members in how they meet regulatory requirements. This approach is recognized by more than 20 states that have adopted similar performance-based leadership programs.
14
For more information about Performance Track please see:
http://www.epa.gov/perftrac/index.htm
.
1605(b) Voluntary Registry.
15
The DOE EIA established a voluntary GHG registry under section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The program was recently enhanced and a final rule containing general reporting guidelines was published on April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20784). The rule is contained in 10 CFR part 300. Unlike EPA's proposal which requires of reporting of GHG emissions from facilities over a specific threshold, the DOE 1605(b) registry allows anyone (e.g., a public entity, private company, or an individual) to report on their emissions and their emission reduction projects to the registry. Large emitters (e.g., anyone that emits over 10,000 tons of CO
2
e per year) that wish to register emissions reductions must submit annual company-wide GHG emissions inventories following technical guidelines published by DOE and must calculate and report net GHG emissions reductions. The program offers a range of reporting methodologies from stringent direct measurement to simplified calculations using default factors and allows the reporters to report using the methodological option they choose. In addition, as mentioned above, unlike EPA's proposal, sequestration and offset projects can also be reported under the 1605(b) program. There is additional flexibility offered to small sources who can choose to limit annual inventories and emission reduction reports to just a single type of activity rather than reporting company-wide GHG emissions, but must still follow the technical guidelines. Reported data are made available on the Web in a public use database.
15
For more information about DOE's 1605(b) programs please see:
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/.
Summary.
These voluntary programs are different in nature from the proposed mandatory GHG emissions reporting rule. Industry participation in the programs and reporting to the programs is entirely voluntary. A small number of sources report, compared to the number of facilities that would likely be affected by the proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule. Most of the EPA voluntary programs do not require reporting of annual emissions data, but are instead intended to encourage GHG reduction projects/activities and track partner's successes in implementing such projects. For the programs that do include annual emissions reporting (e.g., Climate Leaders, DOE 1605(b)) the scope and level of detail are different. For example, Climate Leaders annual reports are generally corporate-wide and do not contain the facility and process-
level details that would be needed by a mandatory program to verify the accuracy of the emissions reports.
At the same time, aspects of the voluntary programs serve as useful starting points for the mandatory GHG reporting rules. GHG emission calculation principles and protocols have been developed for various types of emission sources by Climate Leaders, the DOE 1605(b) program, and some partnerships such as the SF
6
reduction partnerships and SmartWay. Under these protocols, reporting companies monitor process or operating parameters to estimate GHG emissions, report annually, and retain records to document their GHG estimates. Through the voluntary programs, EPA, DOE, and participating companies have gained understanding of processes that emit GHGs and experience in developing and reviewing GHG emission inventories.
B. Federal Mandatory Reporting Programs
Sulfur Dioxide (SO
2
) and Nitrogen Oxides (NO
X
) Trading Programs.
The ARP and the NO
X
Budget Trading Program are cap-and-trade programs designed to reduce emissions of SO
2
and NO
X
16
. As a part of those programs facilities with EGUs that serve a generator larger than 25 MW are required to report emissions. The 40 CFR part 75 CEMS rule establishes monitoring and reporting requirements under these programs. The regulations in 40 CFR part 75 require continuous monitoring and quarterly and annual emissions reporting of CO
2
mass emissions,
17
SO
2
mass emissions, NO
X
emission rate, and heat input. Part 75 contains specifications for the types of monitoring systems that may be used to determine CO
2
emissions and sets forth operations, maintenance, and QA/QC requirement for each system. In some cases, EGUs are allowed to use simplified procedures other than CEMS (e.g., monitoring fuel feed rates and conducting periodic sampling and analyses of fuel carbon content) to determine CO
2
emissions. Under the regulations, affected EGUs must submit detailed quarterly and annual CO
2
emissions reports using standardized electronic reporting formats. If CEMS are used, the quarterly reports include hourly CEMS data and other information used to calculate emissions (e.g., monitor downtime). If alternative monitoring programs are used, detailed data used to calculate CO
2
emissions must be reported.
16
For more information about these cap and trade programs see
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
17
The requirements regarding CO
2
emissions reporting apply only to ARP sources and are pursuant to section 821 of the CAA Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549.
The joint explanatory statement accompanying the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Amendment specified that EPA could use the existing reporting requirements for electric generating units under section 821 of the 1990 CAA Amendments.
18
As described in Sections V.C. and V.D. of this preamble, because the part 75 regulations already require reporting of high quality CO
2
data from EGUs, the GHG reporting rule proposes to use the same CO
2
data rather than require additional reporting of CO
2
from EGUs. They would, however, have to include reporting of the other GHG emissions, such as CH
4
and N
2
O, at their facilities.
18
The joint explanatory statement refers to “Section 821 of the Clean Air Act” but section 821 was part of the 1990 CAA Amendments not codified into the CAA itself.
TRI.
TRI requires facility-level reporting of annual mass emissions of approximately 650 toxic chemicals.
19
If they are above established thresholds, facilities in a wide range of industries report including manufacturing industries, metal and coal mining, electric utilities, and other industrial sectors. Facilities must submit annual reports of total stack and fugitive emissions of the listed toxic chemicals using a standardized form which can be submitted electronically. No information is reported on the processes and emissions points included in the total emissions. The data reported to TRI are not directly useful for the GHG rule because TRI does not include GHG emissions and does not identify processes or emissions sources. However, the TRI program is similar to the proposed GHG reporting rule in that it requires direct emissions reporting from a large number of facilities (roughly 23,000) across all major industrial sectors. Therefore, EPA reviewed the TRI program for ideas regarding program structure and implementation.
19
For more information about TRI and what chemicals are on the list, please see:
http://www.epa.gov/tri/
.
Vehicle Reporting.
EPA's existing criteria pollutant emissions certification regulations, as well as the fuel economy testing regulations which EPA administers as part of the CAFE program, require vehicle manufacturers to measure and report CO
2
for essentially all of their light duty vehicles. In addition, many engine manufacturers currently measure CO
2
as an integral part of calculating emissions of criteria pollutants, and some report CO
2
emissions to EPA in some form.
C. EPA Emissions Inventories
U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
As discussed in Section I.D of this preamble, EPA prepares the
U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
every year. The details of this Inventory, the methodologies used to calculate emissions and its relationship to this proposal are discussed in Section I.D of this preamble.
NEI.
20
EPA compiles the NEI, a database of air emissions information provided primarily by State and local air agencies and Tribes. The database contains information on stationary and mobile sources that emit criteria air pollutants and their precursors, as well as hazardous air pollutants. Stationary point source emissions that must be inventoried and reported are those that emit over a threshold amount of at least one criteria pollutant. Many States also inventory and report stationary sources that emit amounts below the thresholds for each pollutant. The NEI includes over 60,000 facilities. The information that is required consists of facility identification information; process information detailing the types of air pollution emission sources; air pollution emission estimates (including annual emissions); control devices in place; stack parameters; and location information. The NEI differs from the proposed GHG reporting rule in that the NEI contains no GHG data, and the data are reported primarily by State agencies rather than directly reported by industries.
21
However, in developing the proposed rule, EPA used the NEI to help determine sources that might need to report under the GHG reporting rule. We considered the types of facility, process and activity data reported in NEI to support the emissions data as a possible model for the types of data to be reported under the GHG reporting rule. We also considered systems that could be used to link data reported under the GHG rule with data for the same facilities in the NEI.
20
For more information about the NEI please see:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/
.
21
As discussed in section IV of the preamble, tropospheric ozone (O
3
) is a GHG. The precursors to tropospheric O
3
(e.g., NOX, VOCs, etc) are reported to the NEI by States and then EPA models tropospheric O
3
based on that precursor data.
D. Regional and State Voluntary Programs for GHG Emissions Reporting
A number of States have demonstrated leadership and developed corporate voluntary GHG reporting programs individually or joined with other States to develop GHG reporting programs as part of their approaches to addressing GHG emissions. EPA has
benefitted from this leadership and the States' experiences; discussions with those that have already implemented programs have been especially instructive. Section V of the preamble describes the proposed methods for each source category. The different options considered have been particularly informed by the States' expertise. This section of the preamble summarizes two prominent voluntary efforts. In developing the greenhouse rules, EPA reviewed the relevant protocols used by these programs as a starting point. We recognize that these programs may have additional monitoring and reporting requirements than those outlined in the proposed rule in order to provide distinct program benefits.
CCAR
.
22
CCAR is a voluntary GHG registry already in use in California. CCAR has released several methodology documents including a general reporting protocol, general certification (verification) protocol, and several sector-specific protocols. Companies submit emissions reports using a standardized electronic system. Emission reports may be aggregated at the company level or reported at the facility level.
22
For more information about CCAR please see:
http://www.climateregistry.org/
.
TCR
.
23
TCR is a partnership formed by U.S. and Mexican States, Canadian provinces, and Tribes to develop standard GHG emissions measurement and verification protocols and a reporting system capable of supporting mandatory or voluntary GHG emission reporting rules and policies for its member States. TCR has released a General Reporting Protocol that contains procedures to measure and calculate GHG emissions from a wide range of source categories. They have also released a general verification protocol, and an electronic reporting system. Founding reporters (companies and other organizations that have agreed to voluntarily report their GHG emissions) implemented a pilot reporting program in 2008. Annual reports would be submitted covering six GHGs. Corporations must report facility-specific emissions, broken out by type of emission source (e.g., stationary combustion, electricity use, direct process emissions) within the facility.
23
For more information about TCR please see:
http://www.theclimateregistry.org/
.
E. State and Regional Mandatory Programs for GHG Emissions Reporting and Reduction
Several individual States and regional groups of States have demonstrated leadership and are developing or have developed mandatory GHG reporting programs and GHG emissions control programs. This section of the preamble summarizes two regional cap-and-trade programs and several State mandatory reporting rules. We recognize that, like the current voluntary regional and State programs, State and regional mandatory reporting programs may evolve or develop to include additional monitoring and reporting requirements than those included in the proposed rule. In fact, these programs may be broader in scope or more aggressive in implementation because the programs are either components of established reduction programs (e.g., cap and trade) or being used to design and inform specific complementary measures (e.g., energy efficiency).
RGGI
.
24
RGGI is a regional cap-and-trade program that covers CO
2
emissions from EGUs that serve a generator greater than 25 MW in member States in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast. The program goal is to reduce CO
2
emissions to 10 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020. RGGI will utilize the CO
2
reported to and verified by EPA under 40 CFR part 75 to determine compliance of the EGUs in the cap-and-trade program. In addition, the EGUs in RGGI that are not currently reporting to EPA under the ARP and NOX Budget program (e.g., co-generation facilities) will start reporting their CO
2
data to EPA for QA/QC, similar to the sources already reporting. Certain types of offset projects will be allowed, and GHG offset protocols have been developed. The States participating in RGGI have adopted State rules (based on the model rule) to implement RGGI in each State. The RGGI cap-and-trade program took effect on January 1, 2009.
24
For more information about RGGI please see:
http://www.rggi.org/
.
WCI
.
25
WCI is another regional cap-and-trade program being developed by a group of Western States and Canadian provinces. The goal is to reduce GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020. Draft options papers and program scope papers were released in early 2008, public comments were reviewed, and final program design recommendations were made in September 2008. Other elements of the program, such as reporting requirements, market operations, and offset program development continues. Several source categories are being considered for inclusion in the cap and trade framework. The program might be phased in, starting with a few source categories and adding others over time. Points of regulation for some source categories, calculation methodologies, and other reporting program elements are under development. The WCI is also analyzing alternative or complementary policies other than cap-and-trade that could help reach GHG reduction goals. Options for rule implementation and for coordination with other rules and programs such as TCR are being investigated.
25
For more information about WCI please see:
http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/
.
A key difference between the Federal mandatory GHG reporting rule and the RGGI and WCI programs is that the Federal mandatory GHG rule is solely a reporting requirement. It does not in any way regulate GHG emissions or require any emissions reductions.
State Mandatory GHG Reporting Rules
. Seventeen States have developed, or are developing, mandatory GHG reporting rules.
26
The docket contains a summary of these State mandatory rules (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-056). Final rules have not yet been developed by some of the States, so details of some programs are unknown. Reporting requirements have taken effect in twelve States as of 2009; the rest start between 2010 and 2012. Reporting is typically annual, although some States require quarterly reporting for EGUs, consistent with RGGI and the ARP.
26
These include: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
State rules differ with regard to which facilities must report and which GHGs must be reported. Some States require all facilities that must obtain Title V permits to report GHG emissions. Others require reporting for particular sectors (e.g., large EGUs, cement plants, refineries). Some State rules apply to any facility with stationary combustion sources that emit a threshold level of CO
2
. Some apply to any facility, or to facilities within listed industries, if their emissions exceed a specified threshold level of CO
2
e. Many of the State rules apply to six GHGs (CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, HFCs, PFCs, SF
6
); others apply only to CO
2
or a subset of the six gases. Most require reporting at the facility level, or by unit or process within a facility.
The level of specificity regarding GHG monitoring and calculation methods varies. Some of the States refer to use of protocols established by TCR or CCAR. Others look to industry-specific protocols (such as methods developed by the American Petroleum Institute), to accepted international methodologies such as IPCC, and/or to emission factors in EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (known as AP-42
27
) or other EPA guidance.
27
See Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html_ac/index.html
.
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule
.
28
CARB's mandatory reporting rule is an example of a State rule that covers multiple source categories and contains relatively detailed requirements, similar to this proposal developed by EPA. According to the CARB proposed rule (originally proposed October 19, 2007, and revised on December 5, 2007), monitoring must start on January 1, 2009, and the first reports will be submitted in 2010. The rule requires facility-level reporting of all GHGs, except PFCs, from cement manufacturing plants, electric power generation and retail, cogeneration plants, petroleum refineries, hydrogen plants, and facilities with stationary combustion sources emitting greater than 25,000 tons CO
2
per year. California requires 40 CFR part 75 data for EGUs. The California rule contains specific GHG estimation methods that are largely consistent with CCAR protocols, and also rely on American Petroleum Institute protocols and IPCC/EU protocols for certain types of sources. California continues to participate in other national and regional efforts, such as TCR and WCI, to assist with developing consistent reporting tools and procedures on a national and regional basis.
28
For more information about CA mandatory reporting program please see:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/ghg-rep.htm
.
F. How the Proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting Program Is Different From the Federal and State Programs EPA Reviewed
The various existing State and Federal programs EPA reviewed are diverse. They apply to different industries, have different thresholds, require different pollutants and different types of emissions sources to be reported, rely on different monitoring protocols, and require different types of data to be reported, depending on the purposes of each program. None of the existing programs require nationwide, mandatory GHG reporting by facilities in a large number of sectors, so EPA's proposed mandatory GHG rule development effort is unique in this regard.
Although the mandatory GHG rule is unique, EPA carefully considered other Federal and State programs during development of the proposed rule. Documentation of our review of GHG monitoring protocols for each source category used by Federal, State, and international voluntary and mandatory GHG programs, and our review of State mandatory GHG rules can be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-056. The proposed monitoring and GHG calculation methodologies for many source categories are the same as, or similar to, the methodologies contained in State reporting programs such as TCR, CCAR, and State mandatory GHG reporting rules and similar to methodologies developed by EPA voluntary programs such as Climate Leaders. The reporting requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 75 are also being used for this proposed rule. Similarity in proposed methods would help maximize the ability of individual reporters to submit the emissions calculations to multiple programs, if desired. EPA also continues to work closely with States and State-based groups to ensure that the data management approach in this proposal would lead to efficient submission of data to multiple programs. Section V of this preamble includes further information on the selection of monitoring methods for each source category.
The intent of this proposed rule is to collect accurate and consistent GHG emissions data that can be used to inform future decisions. One goal in developing the rule is to utilize and be consistent with the GHG protocols and requirements of other State and Federal programs, where appropriate, to make use of existing cooperative efforts and reduce the burden to facilities submitting reports to other programs. However, we also need to be sure the mandatory reporting rule collects facility-specific data of sufficient quality to achieve the Agency's objectives for this rule. Therefore, some reporting requirements of this proposed rule are different from the State programs. The remaining sections of this preamble further describe the proposed rule requirements and EPA's rationale for all of the requirements.
EPA seeks comment on whether the conclusions drawn during its review of existing programs are accurate and invites data to demonstrate if, and if so how, the goals and objectives of this proposed mandatory reporting system could be met through existing programs. In particular, comments should address how existing programs meet the breadth of sources reporting, thresholds for reporting, consistency and stringency of methods for reporting, level of reporting, frequency of reporting and verification of reports included in this proposal.
III. Summary of the General Requirements of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would require reporting of annual emissions of CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, SF
6
, HFCs, PFCs, and other fluorinated gases (as defined in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A). The rule would apply to certain downstream facilities that emit GHGs, upstream suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs, and manufacturers of vehicles and engines.
29
We are proposing that reporting be at the facility
30
level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial gases and manufacturers of vehicles and engines would report at the corporate level.
29
We are proposing to incorporate the reporting requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines into the existing reporting requirements of 40 CFR parts 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 1033, 1039, 1042, 1045, 1048, 1051, and 1054.
30
For the purposes of this proposal, facility means any physical property, plant, building, structure, source, or stationary equipment located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties in actual physical contact or separated solely by a public roadway or other public right-of-way and under common ownership or common control, that emits or may emit any greenhouse gas. Operators of military installations may classify such installations as more than a single facility based on distinct and independent functional groupings within contiguous military properties.
A. Who must report?
Owners and operators of the following facilities and supply operations would submit annual GHG emission reports under the proposal:
• A facility that contains any of the source categories listed below in any calendar year starting in 2010. For these facilities, the GHG emission report would cover all sources in any source category for which calculation methodologies are provided in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subparts B through JJ.
—Electricity generating facilities that are subject to the ARP, or that contain electric generating units that collectively emit 25,000 metric tons of CO
2
e or more per year.
31
31
This does not include portable equipment or generating units designated as emergency generators in a permit issued by a state or local air pollution control agency. As described in section V.C of the preamble we are taking comment on whether or not a permit should be required.
—Adipic acid production.
—Aluminum production.
—Ammonia manufacturing.
—Cement production.
—Electronics—Semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD (LCD) manufacturing facilities with an annual production capacity that exceeds any of the thresholds listed in this paragraph—Semiconductors:
1,080 m
2
silicon, MEMS: 1,202 m
2
silicon, LCD: 235,700 m
2
LCD.
—Electric power systems that include electrical equipment with a total nameplace capacity that exceeds 17,820 lbs (7,838 kg) of SF
6
or PFCs.
—HCFC-22 production.
—HFC-23 destruction processes that are not colocated with a HCFC-22 production facility and that destroy more than 2.14 metric tons of HFC-23 per year.
—Lime manufacturing.
—Nitric acid production.
—Petrochemical production.
—Petroleum refineries.
—Phosphoric acid production.
—Silicon carbide production.
—Soda ash production.
—Titanium dioxide production.
—Underground coal mines that are subject to quarterly or more frequent sampling by MSHA of ventilation systems.
—Municipal landfills that generate CH
4
in amounts equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO
2
e or more per year.
—Manure management systems that emit CH
4
and N
2
O in amounts equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO
2
e or more per year.
• Any facility that emits 25,000 metric tons CO
2
e or more per year in combined emissions from stationary fuel combustion units, miscellaneous use of carbonates and all of the source categories listed below that are located at the facility in any calendar year starting in 2010. For these facilities, the GHG emission report would cover all source categories for which calculation methodologies are provided in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subparts B through JJ of the rule.
—Electricity Generation
32
32
This does not include portable equipment or generating units designated as emergency generators in a permit issued by a state or local air pollution control agency. As described in section V.C of the preamble we are taking comment on whether or not a permit should be required.
—Electronics—Photovoltaic Manufacturing
—Ethanol Production
—Ferroalloy Production
—Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Production
—Food Processing
—Glass Production
—Hydrogen Production
—Iron and Steel Production
—Lead Production
—Magnesium Production
—Oil and Natural Gas Systems
—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
—Zinc Production
—Industrial Landfills
—Wastewater
• Any facility that in any calendar year starting in 2010 meets all three of the conditions listed in this paragraph. For these facilities, the GHG emission report would cover emissions from stationary fuel combustion sources only. For 2010 only, the facilities can submit an abbreviated emissions report according to proposed 40 CFR 98.3(d).
—The facility does not contain any source in any source category designated in the above two paragraphs;
—The aggregate maximum rated heat input capacity of the stationary fuel combustion units at the facility is 30 mmBtu/hr or greater; and
—The facility emits 25,000 metric tons CO
2
e or more per year from all stationary fuel combustion sources.
33
33
This does not include portable equipment or generating units designated as emergency generators in a permit issued by a state or local air pollution control agency. As described in section V. C of the preamble we are taking comment on whether or not a permit should be required.
• Any supplier of any of the products listed below in any calendar year starting in 2010. For these suppliers, the GHG emissions report would cover all applicable products for which calculation methodologies are provided in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subparts KK through PP.
—Coal.
—Coal-based liquid fuels.
—Petroleum products.
—Natural gas and NGLs.
—Industrial GHGs: All producers of industrial GHGs, importers and exporters of industrial GHGs with total bulk imports or total bulk exports that exceed 25,000 metric tons CO
2
e per year.
—CO
2
: All producers of CO
2
, importers and exporters of CO
2
or a combination of CO
2
and other industrial GHGs with total bulk imports or total bulk exports that exceed 25,000 metric tons CO
2
e per year.
• Manufacturers of mobile sources and engines would be required to report emissions from the vehicles and engines they produce, generally in terms of an emission rate.
34
These requirements would apply to emissions of CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, and, where appropriate, HFCs. Manufacturers of the following vehicle and engine types would need to report: (1) Manufacturers of passenger cars, light trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, (2) manufacturers of highway heavy-duty engines and complete vehicles, (3) manufacturers of nonroad diesel engines and nonroad large spark-ignition engines, (4) manufacturers of nonroad small spark-ignition engines, marine spark-ignition engines, personal watercraft, highway motorcycles, and recreational engines and vehicles, (5) manufacturers of locomotive and marine diesel engines, and (6) manufacturers of jet and turboprop aircraft engines.
34
As discussed in Section V.QQ, manufacturers below a size threshold would be exempt.
B. Schedule for Reporting
Facilities and suppliers would begin collecting data on January 1, 2010. The first emissions report would be due on March 31, 2011, for emissions during 2010.
35 36
Reports would be submitted annually. Facilities with EGUs that are subject to the ARP would continue to report CO
2
mass emissions quarterly, as required by the ARP, in addition to providing the annual GHG emissions reports under this rule. EPA is proposing that the rule require the submission of GHG emissions data on an ongoing, annual basis. The snapshot of information provided by a one-time information collection request would not provide the type of ongoing information which could inform the variety of potential policy options being evaluated for addressing climate change. EPA is taking comment on other possible options, including a commitment to review the continued need for the information at a specific later date, or a sunset provision. Once subject to this reporting rule, a facility or supply operation would continue to submit reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years.
35
Unless otherwise noted, years and dates in this notice refer to calendar years and dates.
36
There is a discussion in section I.IV of this preamble that takes comment on alternative reporting schedules.
C. What do I have to report?
The report would include total annual GHG emissions in metric tons of CO
2
e aggregated for all the source categories and for all supply categories for which emission calculation methods are provided in part 98. The report would also separately present annual mass GHG emissions for each source category and supply category, by gas. Separate reporting requirements are provided for vehicle and engine manufacturers. These sources would be required to report emissions from the vehicles and engines they produce, generally in terms of an emission rate.
Within a given source category, the report also would break out emissions at the level required by the respective subpart (e.g., reporting could be
required for each individual unit for some source categories and for each process line for other source categories).
In addition to GHG emissions, you would report certain activity data (e.g., fuel use, feedstock inputs) that were used to generate the emissions data. The required activity data are specified in each subpart. For some source categories, additional data would be reported to support QA/QC and verification.
EPA would protect any information claimed as CBI in accordance with regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. However, note that in general, emission data collected under CAA sections 114 and 208 cannot be considered CBI.
37
37
Although CBI determinations are usually made on a case-by-case basis, EPA has issued guidance in an earlier
Federal Register
notice on what constitutes emissions data that cannot be considered CBI (956 FR 7042-7043, February 21, 1991).
D. How do I submit the report?
The reports would be submitted electronically, in a format to be specified by the Administrator after publication of the final rule.
38
To the extent practicable, we plan to adapt existing facility reporting programs to accept GHG emissions data. We are developing a new electronic data reporting system for source categories or suppliers for which it is not feasible to use existing reporting mechanisms.
38
For more information about the reporting format please see section VI of this preamble.
Each report would contain a signed certification by a Designated Representative of the facility. On behalf of the owner or operator, the Designated Representative would certify under penalty of law that the report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 98 and that the information contained in the report is true and accurate, based on a reasonable inquiry of individuals responsible for obtaining the information.
E. What records must I retain?
Each facility or supplier would also have to retain and make available to EPA upon request the following records for five years in an electronic or hard-copy format as appropriate:
• A list of all units, operations, processes and activities for which GHG emissions are calculated;
• The data used to calculate the GHG emissions for each unit, operation, process, and activity, categorized by fuel or material type;
• Documentation of the process used to collect the necessary data for the GHG emissions calculations;
• The GHG emissions calculations and methods used;
• All emission factors used for the GHG emissions calculations;
• Any facility operating data or process information used for the GHG emissions calculations;
• Names and documentation of key facility personnel involved in calculating and reporting the GHG emissions;
• The annual GHG emissions reports;
• A log book documenting any procedural changes to the GHG emissions accounting methods and any changes to the instrumentation critical to GHG emissions calculations;
• Missing data computations;
• A written QAPP;
• Any other data specified in any applicable subpart of proposed 40 CFR part 98. Examples of such data could include the results of sampling and analysis procedures required by the subparts (e.g., fuel heat content, carbon content of raw materials, and flow rate) and other data used to calculate emissions.
IV. Rationale for the General Reporting, Recordkeeping and Verification Requirements That Apply to All Source Categories
This section of the preamble explains the rationales for EPA's proposals for various aspects of the rule. This section applies to all of the source categories in the preamble (further discussed in Sections V.B through V.PP of this preamble) with the exception of mobile sources (discussed in Section V.QQ of this preamble). The proposals EPA is making with regard to mobile sources are extensions of existing EPA programs and therefore the rationales and decisions are discussed wholly within that section. With respect to the source categories B through PP, EPA is particularly interested in receiving comments on the following issues:
(1) Reporting thresholds. EPA is interested in receiving data and analyses on thresholds. In particular, we solicit comment on whether the thresholds proposed are appropriate for each source category or whether other emissions or capacity based thresholds should be applied. If suggesting alternative thresholds, please discuss whether and how they would achieve broad emissions coverage and result in a reasonable number of reporters.
(2) Methodologies. EPA is interested in receiving data, technical information and analyses relevant to the methodology approach. We solicit comment on whether the methodologies selected by EPA are appropriate for each source category or whether alternative approaches should be adopted. In particular, EPA would like information on the technical feasibility, costs, and relative improvement in accuracy of direct measurement at facilities. If suggesting an alternative methodology (e.g., using established industry default factors or allowing industry groups to propose an industry specific emission factor to EPA), please discuss whether and how it provides complete and accurate emissions data, comparable to other source categories, and also reflects broadly agreed upon calculation procedures for that source category.
(3) Frequency and year of reporting. EPA is interested in receiving data and analyses regarding frequency of reporting and the schedule for reporting. In particular, we solicit information regarding whether the frequency of data collection and reporting selected by EPA is appropriate for each source category or whether alternative frequencies should be considered (e.g., quarterly or every few years). If suggesting an alternative frequency, please discuss whether and how it ensures that EPA and the public receive the data in a timely fashion that allow it to be relevant for future policy decisions. EPA is proposing 2010 data collection and 2011 reporting, however, we are interested in receiving comment on alternative schedules if we are unable to meet our goal.
(4) Verification. EPA is interested in receiving data and analyses regarding verification options. We solicit input on whether the verification approach selected by EPA is appropriate for each source category or whether an alternative approach should be adopted. If suggesting an alternative verification approach, please discuss how it weighs the costs and burden to the reporter and EPA as well as the need to ensure the data are complete, accurate, and available in the timely fashion.
(5) Duration of the program. EPA is interested in receiving data and analyses regarding options for the duration of the GHG emissions information collection program in this proposed rule. By duration, EPA means for how many years the program should require the submission of information. EPA solicits input on whether the duration selected by EPA is appropriate for each source category or whether an alternative approach should be adopted. If suggesting an alternative duration, please discuss how it impacts the need to ensure the data are sufficient to inform the variety of potential policy decisions regarding climate change under consideration.
A. Rationale for Selection of GHGs To Report
The proposed rule would require reporting of CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, HFCs, PFCs, SF
6
, and other fluorinated compounds (e.g., NF
3
and HFEs) as defined in the rule
39
. These are the most abundantly emitted GHGs that result from human activity. They are not currently controlled by other mandatory Federal programs and, with the exception of the CO
2
emissions data reported by EGUs subject to the ARP
40
, GHG emissions data are also not reported under other mandatory Federal programs. CO
2
is the largest contributor of GHGs directly emitted by human activities, and is a significant driver of climate change. The anthropogenic combined heating effect of CH
4
, N
2
O, HFCs, PFCs, SF
6
, and the other fluorinated compounds are also significant: About 40 percent as large as the CO
2
heating effect according to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
39
The GWPs for the GHGs to be reported are found in Table A-1 of proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A.
40
Pursuant to regulations established under section 821 of the CAA Amendments of 1990, hourly CO
2
emissions are monitored and reported quarterly to EPA. EPA performs a series of QA/QC checks on the data and then makes it available on the Web site (
http://epa.gov/camddataandmaps/
) usually within 30 days after receipt.
The IPCC focuses on CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF
6
for both scientific assessments and emissions inventory purposes because these are long-lived, well-mixed GHGs not controlled by the Montreal Protocol as Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. These GHGs are directly emitted by human activities, are reported annually in EPA's
Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
, and are the common focus of the climate change research community. The IPCC also included methods for accounting for emissions from several specified fluorinated gases in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
41
These gases include fluorinated ethers, which are used in electronics, anesthetics, and as heat transfer fluids. Like the other six GHGs for which emissions would be reported, these fluorinated compounds are long-lived in the atmosphere and have high GWP. In many cases these fluorinated gases are used in expanding industries (e.g., electronics) or as substitutes for HFCs. As such, EPA is proposing to include reporting of these gases to ensure that the Agency has an accurate understanding of the emissions and uses of these gases, particularly as those uses expand.
41
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe (eds), hereafter referred to as the “2006 IPCC Guidelines” are found at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/methodology-reports.htm.
For additional information on these gases please see Table A-1 in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and the Suppliers of Industrial GHGs TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-041).
There are other GHGs and aerosols that have climatic warming effects that we are not proposing to include in this rule: Water vapor, CFCs, HCFCs, halons, tropospheric O
3
, and black carbon. There are a number of reasons why we are not proposing to require reporting of these gases and aerosols under this rule. For example, these GHGs and aerosols are not covered under any State or Federal voluntary or mandatory GHG program, the UNFCCC or the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
. Nonetheless, we request comment on the selection of GHGs that are or are not included in the proposed rule; include data supporting your position on why a GHG should or should not be included. More detailed discussions for particular substances that we do not propose including in this rule follow.
Water Vapor
. Water vapor is the most abundant naturally occurring GHG and, therefore, makes up a significant share of the natural, background greenhouse effect. However, water vapor emissions from human activities have only a negligible effect on atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. Significant changes to global atmospheric concentrations of water vapor occur indirectly through human-induced global warming, which then increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. Therefore, changes in water vapor concentrations are not an initial driver of climate change, but rather an effect of climate change which then acts as a positive feedback that further enhances warming. For this reason, the IPCC does not list direct emissions of water vapor as an anthropogenic forcing agent of climate change, but does include this water vapor feedback mechanism in response to human-induced warming in all modeling scenarios of future climate change. Based on this recognition that anthropogenic emissions of water vapor are not a significant driver of anthropogenic climate change, EPA's annual
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
does not include water vapor, and GHG inventory reporting guidelines under the UNFCCC do not require data on water vapor emissions.
ODS
. The CFCs, HCFCs, and halons are all strong anthropogenic GHGs that are long-lived in the atmosphere and are adding to the global anthropogenic heating effect. Therefore, these gases share common climatic properties with the other GHGs discussed in this preamble. The production and consumption of these substances (and, hence, their anthropogenic emissions) are being controlled and phased out, not because of their effects on climate change, but because they deplete stratospheric O
3
, which protects against harmful ultraviolet B radiation. The control and phase-out of these substances in the U.S. and globally is occurring under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and in the U.S. under Title VI of the CAA as well.
42
Therefore, the climate change research and policy community typically does not focus on these substances, precisely because they are essentially already being addressed with non-climate policy mechanisms. The UNFCCC does not cover these substances, and instead defers their treatment to the Montreal Protocol.
42
Under the Montreal Protocol, production and consumption of CFCs were phased out in developed countries in 1996 (with some essential use exemptions) and are scheduled for phase-out by 2010 in developing countries (with some essential use exemptions). For halons the schedule was 1994 for phase out in developed countries and 2010 for developing countries; HCFC production was frozen in 2004 in developed countries, and in 2016 production will be frozen in developing countries; and HCFC consumption phase-out dates are 2030 for developed countries and 2040 in developing countries.
Tropospheric Ozone
. Increased concentrations of tropospheric O
3
are causing a significant anthropogenic warming effect, but, unlike the long-lived GHGs, tropospheric O
3
has a short atmospheric lifetime (hours to weeks), and therefore its concentrations are more variable over space and time. For these reasons, its global heating effect and relevance to climate change tends to entail greater uncertainty compared to the well-mixed, long-lived GHGs. Tropospheric O
3
is not addressed under the UNFCCC. Moreover, tropospheric O
3
is already listed as a NAAQS pollutant and its precursors are reported to States. Tropospheric O
3
is subsequently modeled based on the precursor data reported to the NEI.
Black Carbon
. Black carbon is an aerosol particle that results from incomplete combustion of the carbon contained in fossil fuels, and it remains in the atmosphere for about a week. There is some evidence that black carbon emissions may contribute to climate warming by absorbing incoming and reflected sunlight in the atmosphere and by darkening clouds, snow and ice. While the net effect of anthropogenic aerosols has a cooling effect (CCSP 2009), there is considerable uncertainty
in quantifying the effects of black carbon on radiative forcing and whether black carbon specifically has direct or indirect warming effects. The National Academy of Sciences states “Regulations targeting black carbon emissions or ozone precursors would have combined benefits for public health and climate”
43
while also indicating that the level of scientific understanding regarding the effect of black carbon on climate is “very low.” The direct and indirect radiative forcing properties of multiple aerosols, including sulphates, organic carbon, and black carbon, are not well understood. While mobile diesel engines have been the largest black carbon source in the U.S., these emissions are expected to be reduced significantly over the next several decades based on CDPFs for new vehicles.
43
National Academy of Sciences, “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties,” October 2005.
B. Rationale for Selection of Source Categories To Report
Section III of this preamble lists the source categories that would submit reports under the proposed rule. The source categories identified in this list were selected after considering the language of the Appropriations Act and the accompanying explanatory statement, and EPA's experience in developing the U.S. GHG Inventory. The Appropriations Act referred to reporting “in all sectors of the economy” and the explanatory statement directed EPA to include “emissions from upstream production and downstream sources to the extent the Administrator deems it appropriate.”
44
In developing the proposed list, we also used our significant experience in quantifying GHG emissions from source categories across the economy for the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
44
To read the full appropriations language please refer to the links on this Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
As a starting point, EPA first considered all anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions. The term “anthropogenic” refers to emissions that are produced as a result of human activities (e.g., combustion of coal in an electric utility or CH
4
emissions from a landfill). This is in contrast to GHGs that are emitted to the atmosphere as a result of natural activities, such as volcanoes. Anthropogenic emissions may be of biogenic origin (manure lagoons) or non-biogenic origin (e.g., coal mines). Consistent with existing international, national, regional, and corporate-level GHG reporting programs, this proposal includes only anthropogenic sources.
As a second step, EPA considered all of the source categories in the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
because, as described in Section I.D of this preamble, it is a top-down assessment of anthropogenic sources of emissions in the U.S. Furthermore, the Inventory has been independently reviewed by national and international experts and is considered to be a comprehensive representation of national-level GHG emissions and source categories relevant for the U.S.
As a third step, EPA also carefully reviewed the recently completed 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for additional source categories that may be relevant for the U.S. These international guidelines are just beginning to be incorporated into national inventories. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines identified one additional source category for consideration (fugitive emissions from fluorinated GHG production).
As a fourth step, once EPA had a complete list of source categories relevant to the U.S., the Agency systematically reviewed those source categories against the following criteria to develop the list to the source categories included in the proposal:
(1) Include source categories that emit the most significant amounts of GHG emissions, while also minimizing the number of reporters, and
(2) Include source categories that can be measured with an appropriate level of accuracy.
To accomplish the first criterion, EPA set reporting thresholds, as described in Section IV.C of this preamble, that are designed to target large emitters. When the proposed thresholds are applied, the source categories included in this proposal meet the criterion of balancing the emissions coverage with a reasonable number of reporters. For more detailed information about the coverage of emissions and number of reporters see the Thresholds TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-046) and the RIA (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-002).
The second criterion was to require reporting for only those sources for which measurement capabilities are sufficiently accurate and consistent. Under this criterion, EPA considered whether or not facility reporting would be as effective as other means of obtaining emissions data. For some sources, our understanding of emissions is limited by lack of knowledge of source-specific factors. In instances where facility-specific calculations are feasible and result in sufficiently accurate and consistent estimates, facility-level reporting would improve current inventory estimates and EPA's understanding of the types and levels of emissions coming from large facilities, particularly in the industrial sector. These source categories have been included in the proposal. For other source categories, uncertainty about emissions is related more to the unavailability of emission factors or simple models to estimate emissions accurately and at a reasonable cost at the facility-level. Under this criterion, we would require facility-level reporting only if reporting would provide more accurate estimates than can be obtained by other means, such as national or regional-level modeling. For an example, please refer to the discussion below on emissions from agricultural sources and other land uses.
As the Agency completed its four step evaluation of source categories to include in the proposal, some source categories were excluded from consideration and some were added. The reasons for the additions and deletions are explained below. In general, the proposed reporting rule covers almost all of the source categories in the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Reporting by direct emitters
. Consistent with the appropriations language regarding reporting of emissions from “downstream sources,” EPA is proposing reporting requirements from facilities that directly emit GHGs above a certain threshold as a result of combustion of fuel or processes. The majority of the direct emitters included in this proposal are large facilities in the electricity generation or industrial sectors. In addition, many of the electricity generation facilities are already reporting their CO
2
emissions to EPA under existing regulations. As such, these facilities have only a minimal increase in the amount of data they have to provide EPA on their CH
4
and N
2
O emissions. The typical industrial facilities that are required to report under this proposal have emissions that are substantially higher than the proposed thresholds and are already doing many of the measurements and quantifications of emissions required by this proposal through existing business practices, voluntary programs, or mandatory State-level GHG reporting programs.
For more information about the thresholds included in this proposal please refer to Section IV.C of this
preamble and for more information about the requirements for specific sources refer to Section V of this preamble.
Reporting by fuel and industrial GHG suppliers.
45
Consistent with the appropriations language regarding reporting of emissions from “upstream production,” EPA is proposing reporting requirements from upstream suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial GHGs. In the context of GHG reporting, “upstream emissions” refers to the GHG emissions potential of a quantity of industrial gas or fossil fuel supplied into the economy. For fossil fuels, the emissions potential is the amount of CO
2
that would be produced from complete combustion or oxidation of the carbon in the fuel. In many cases, the fossil fuels and industrial GHGs supplied by producers and importers are used and ultimately emitted by a large number of small sources, particularly in the commercial and residential sectors (
e.g.
, HFCs emitted from home A/C units or GHG emissions from individual motor vehicles).
46
To cover these direct emissions would require reporting by hundreds or thousands of small facilities. To avoid this impact, the proposed rule does not include all of those emitters, but instead requires reporting by the suppliers of industrial gases and suppliers of fossil fuels. Because the GHGs in these products are almost always fully emitted during use, reporting these supply data would provide an accurate estimate of national emissions while substantially reducing the number of reporters.
47
For this reason, the proposed rule requires reporting by suppliers of coal and coal-based products, petroleum products, natural gas and NGLs, CO
2
gas, and other industrial GHGs. We are not proposing to require reporting by suppliers of biomass-based fuels, or renewable fuels, due to the fact that GHGs emitted upon combustion of these fuels are traditionally taken into account at the point of biomass production. However, we seek comment on this approach and note that producers of some biomass-based fuels (e.g., ethanol) would be subject to reporting requirements for their on-site emissions under this proposal, similar to other fuel producers. For more information about these source categories please see the source-specific discussions in Section V of this preamble.
45
In this context, suppliers include producers, importers, and exporters of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs.
46
While EPA is not proposing any reporting requirements in this rule for operators of mobile source fleets, we are requesting comment in Section V.QQ.4.b of the Preamble.
47
As an example of estimating the CO
2
emissions that result from the combustion of fossil fuels, please see, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 2—Energy, Chapter 1—Introduction (
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html
).
There is inherent double-reporting of emissions in a program that includes both upstream and downstream sources. For example, coal mines would report CO
2
emissions that would be produced from combustion of the coal supplied into the economy, and the receiving power plants are already reporting CO
2
emissions to EPA from burning the coal to generate electricity. This double-reporting is nevertheless consistent with the appropriations language, and provides valuable information to EPA and stakeholders in the development of climate change policy and programs. Policies such as low-carbon fuel standards can only be applied upstream, whereas end-use emission standards can only be applied downstream. Data from upstream and downstream sources would be necessary to formulate and assess the impacts of such potential policies. EPA recognizes the double-reporting and as discussed in Section I.D of this preamble does not intend to use the upstream and downstream emissions data as a replacement for the national emissions estimates found in the Inventory.
It is possible to construct a reporting system with no double-reporting. For example, such a system could include fossil fuel combustion-related emissions upstream only, based on the fuel suppliers, supplemented by emissions reported downstream for industrial processes at select industries (e.g., CO
2
process emissions from the production of cement); fugitive emissions from coal, oil, and gas operations; biological processes and mobile source manufacturers. Industrial GHG suppliers could be captured completely upstream, thereby removing reporting obligations from the use of the industrial gases by large downstream users (e.g., magnesium production and SF
6
in electric power systems). Under this option, the total number of facilities affected is approximately 32% lower than the proposed option, and the private sector costs are approximately 26% lower than the proposed option. The emissions coverage remains largely the same as the proposed option although it is important to note that some process related emissions may not be captured due to the fact that downstream combustion sources would not be covered under this option. A source with process emission plus combustion emissions would only have to report their process emission, thus the exclusion of downstream combustion could result in some sources being under the threshold. For more information about this analysis and the differences in the number of reporters and coverage of emissions, please see the RIA (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-002).
Emissions from agricultural sources and other land uses.
The proposed rule does not require reporting of GHG emissions from enteric fermentation, rice cultivation, field burning of agricultural residues, composting (other than as part of a manure management system), agricultural soil management, or other land uses and land-use changes, such as emissions associated with deforestation, and carbon storage in living biomass or harvested wood products. As discussed in Section V of this preamble, the proposal does include reporting of emissions from manure management systems.
EPA reports on the GHG emissions and sinks associated with agricultural and land-use sources in the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
In the agriculture sector, the U.S. GHG inventory report estimated that agricultural soil management, which includes fertilizer application (including synthetic and manure fertilizers, etc.), contributed N
2
O emissions of 265 million metric tons CO
2
e in 2006 and enteric fermentation contributed CH
4
emissions of 126 million metric tons CO
2
e in 2006. These amounts reflect 3.8 percent and 1.8 percent of total GHG emissions from anthropogenic sources in 2006. Rice cultivation, agricultural field burning, and composting (other than as part of a manure management system) contributed emissions of 5.9, 1.2, and 3.3 million metric tons CO
2
e, respectively in 2006. Total carbon fluxes, rather than specific emissions from deforestation, for U.S. forestlands and other land uses and land-use changes were also reported in the U.S. GHG inventory report.
The challenges to including these direct emission source categories in the rule are that practical reporting methods to estimate facility-level emissions for these sources can be difficult to implement and can yield uncertain results. For more information on uncertainty for these sources, please refer to the TSD for Biological Process Sources Excluded from this Rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-045). Furthermore, these sources are characterized by a large number of small emitters. In light of these challenges, we have determined that it is impractical to require reporting of emissions from these sources in the proposed rule at
this time for the reasons explained below.
For these sources, currently, there are no direct greenhouse gas emission measurement methods available except for research methods that are prohibitively expensive and require sophisticated equipment. Instead, limited modeling-based methods have been developed for voluntary GHG reporting protocols which use general emission factors, and large-scale models have been developed to produce comprehensive national-level emissions estimates, such as those reported in the U.S. GHG inventory report.
To calculate emissions using emission factor or carbon stock change approaches, it would be necessary for landowners to report on management practices, and a variety of data inputs. Activity data collection and emission factor development necessary for emissions calculations at the scale of individual reporters can be complex and costly.
For example, for calculating emissions of N
2
O from agricultural soils, data on nitrogen inputs necessary for accurate emissions calculations include: Synthetic fertilizer, organic amendments (manure and sludge), waste from grazing animals, crop residues, and mineralization of soil organic matter. While some activity data can be collected with reasonable certainty, the emissions estimates could still have a high degree of uncertainty because the emission factors available for individual reporters do not reflect the variety of conditions (e.g., soil type, moisture) that need to be considered for accurate estimates.
Without reasonably accurate facility-level emissions factors and the ability to accurately measure all facility-level calculation variables at a reasonable cost to reporters, facility-level emissions reporting would not improve our knowledge of GHG emissions relative to national or regional-level emissions models and data available from national databases. While a systematic measurement program of these sources could improve understanding of the environmental factors and management practices that influence emissions, this type of measurement program is technically difficult and expensive to implement, and would be better accomplished through an empirical research program that establishes and maintains rigorous measurements over time.
Despite the issues associated with reporting by the agriculture and land use sectors, threshold analyses were conducted for several source categories within these sectors as part of their consideration for inclusion in this rule. For some agricultural source categories, the number of individual farms covered at various thresholds was estimated. The resulting analyses showed that for most of these sources no facilities would exceed any of the thresholds evaluated.
Because facility-level reporting is impracticable, the proposed rule contains other provisions to improve our understanding of emissions from these source categories. For example, agricultural soil management is a significant source of N
2
O. Activity data, including synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizer applications, influence N
2
O emissions from this agricultural source category. To gain additional information on synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizers, EPA is proposing that the industrial facilities reporting under this rule include information on the production and nitrogen content of fertilizers as part of their annual reports to EPA. It is estimated that all of the synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizer produced in the U.S. is manufactured by industrial facilities that are covered under this rule due to onsite combustion-related and industrial process emissions (e.g., ammonia manufacturing facilities). The reporting requirements are contained in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A.
EPA is requesting comment on this approach. In particular, the Agency is looking for information on the usefulness of the fertilizer data for estimating N
2
O emissions from agricultural soils, and also on including other possible reporters of synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizers, such as fertilizer wholesalers or distributors, or importers in order to develop a better understanding of the source of N
2
O emissions from fertilizer use.
For additional background information on emissions from agricultural sources and other land use, please refer to the TSD for Biological Process Sources Excluded from this Rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-045).
C. Rationale for Selection of Thresholds
The proposed rule would establish reporting thresholds at the facility level.
48 49 50
Only those facilities that exceed a threshold as specified in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A would be required to submit annual GHG reports.
48
Facilities reporting under this rule will likely have more than one source category within their facility (e.g., a petroleum refinery would have to report on its refinery process, combustion, landfill and wastewater emissions).
49
For the purposes of this rule, facility means any physical property, plant, building, structure, source, or stationary equipment located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties in actual physical contact or separated solely by a public roadway or other public right-of-way and under common ownership or common control, that emits or may emit any greenhouse gas. Operators of military installations may classify such installations as more than a single facility based on distinct and independent functional groupings within contiguous military properties.
50
A different threshold approach is proposed for vehicle and engine manufacturers (when reporting emissions from the vehicles and engines the produce). Here, EPA proposes to exempt small businesses from reporting requirements, instead of applying an emission-based threshold.
The thresholds are expressed in several ways (e.g., actual emissions or capacity). The use of these different types of thresholds is discussed later in this section, but most correspond to an annual facility-wide emission level of 25,000 metric tons of CO
2
e, and the thresholds result in covering approximately 85-90 percent of U.S. emissions. That level is largely consistent with many of the existing GHG reporting programs, including California, which also has a 25,000 metric ton of CO
2
e threshold. Furthermore, many industry stakeholders that EPA met with expressed support for a 25,000 metric ton of CO
2
e threshold because it sufficiently captures the majority of GHG emissions in the U.S., while excluding smaller facilities and sources.
51
The three exceptions to the 25,000 metric ton of CO
2
e threshold are electricity production at selected units subject to existing Federal programs, fugitive emissions from coal mining, and emissions from mobile sources. These thresholds were selected to be consistent with existing thresholds for reporting similar data to EPA and the MSHA. The proposed thresholds maximized the rule coverage with over 85 percent of U.S. emissions reported by approximately 13,000 reporters, while keeping reporting burden to a minimum and excluding small emitters.
51
To view a summary of EPA's outreach efforts please refer to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-055.
Consideration of alternative emissions thresholds.
In selecting the proposed threshold level, we considered two lower emission threshold alternatives and one higher alternative. We collected available data on each industry and analyzed the implication of various thresholds in terms of number of facilities and level of emissions covered at both the industry level and the national level. We also performed a similar analysis for each proposed source category to determine if there were reasons to develop a different threshold in specific industry sectors. From these analyses, we concluded that a 25,000 metric ton threshold suited the needs of the reporting program by providing comprehensive coverage of
emissions with a reasonable number of reporters and that having a uniform threshold was an equitable approach. This conclusion took into account our finding that a threshold other than 25,000 metric tons of CO
2
e might appear to achieve an appropriate balance between number of facilities and emissions covered for a limited number of source categories. Our conclusions about the alternative thresholds are summarized below and in the Thresholds TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-046), and the considerations for individual source categories are explained in Section V of this preamble.
The lower threshold alternatives that we considered were 1,000 metric tons of CO
2
e per year, and 10,000 metric tons of CO
2
e per year. Both broaden national emissions coverage but do so by disproportionately increasing the number of affected facilities (e.g., increasing the number of reporters by an order of magnitude in the case of a 1,000 metric tons CO
2
e/yr threshold and doubling the number of reporters in the case of a 10,000 metric tons CO
2
e/yr threshold). The majority of stakeholders were opposed to these lower thresholds for that reason—the gains in emissions coverage are not adequately balanced against the increased number of affected facilities.
A 1,000 metric ton of CO
2
e per year threshold would increase the number of affected facilities by an order of magnitude over the proposed threshold. The effect of a 1,000 metric ton threshold would be to change the focus of the program from large to small emitters. This threshold would impose reporting costs on tens of thousands of small businesses that in total would amount to less than 10 percent of national GHG emissions.
A 10,000 metric ton of CO
2
e per year threshold approximately doubles the number of facilities affected compared to a 25,000 metric ton threshold. The effect of a 10,000 metric ton threshold would only improve national emissions coverage by approximately 1 percent. The extra data that would result from a 10,000 metric ton threshold would do little to further the objectives of the program. EPA believes the 25,000 metric ton threshold more effectively targets large industrial emitters, which are responsible for some 90 percent of U.S. emissions. Similarly, California's mandatory GHG reporting program also based their selection of a 25,000 metric ton threshold on similar results at the State level.
52
52
For more information on CA analysis please see
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ghg2007/isor.pdf.
We also considered 100,000 metric tons of CO
2
e per year as an alternative threshold but concluded that it fails to satisfy two key objectives. First, it may exclude enough emitters in certain source categories such that the emissions data would not adequately cover key sectors of the economy. At 100,000 metric tons CO
2
e per year, reporting for several large industry sectors would be rather significantly fragmented, resulting in an incomplete picture of direct emissions from that sector. For example, at a 100,000 metric ton of CO
2
e threshold in ammonia manufacturing, approximately 22 out of 24 facilities would have to report; in nitric acid production, approximately 40 out of 45 facilities would have to report; in lime manufacturing, 52 out of 89 facilities would have to report; and in pulp and paper, 410 out of 425 facilities would have to report. Several stakeholders we met with stressed this potential fragmentation as a concern and requested that EPA include all facilities in a particular sector to simplify compliance, even if there was some uncertainty about whether all facilities in an industry would technically meet a particular threshold. For more information about the impact of thresholds on different industries, please see the source-specific discussion in Section V of this preamble.
The data collected by this rulemaking is intended to support analyses of future policy options. Those options may depend on harmonization with State or even international reporting programs. Several States and regional GHG programs are using thresholds that are comparable in scope to a 25,000 metric ton of CO
2
e per year threshold.
53
As noted earlier, California specifically chose a threshold of 25,000 metric ton of CO
2
e after analyzing CO
2
data from the air quality management districts because they concluded that level provided the correct balance of emissions coverage and number of reporters. Implementing a national reporting program using a 100,000, 10,000 or 1,000 metric ton of CO
2
e per year limit would result in a fragmentary dataset insufficient in detail or coverage, or a more burdensome reporting requirement, and these options would be inconsistent with what many other GHG programs are requiring today.
53
For more information about what different States are requiring, see section II of this preamble, the “Summary of Existing State GHG Rules” memorandum and “Review of Existing Programs” memorandum found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-056 and 054.
In addition to the typical emissions thresholds associated with GHG reporting and reduction programs (e.g., 25,000 metric tons CO
2
e), under the CAA, there are (1) the Title V program that requires all major stationary sources, including all sources that emit or have the potential to emit over 100 tons per year of an air pollutant, to hold an operating permit
54
and (2) the PSD/NSR program that requires new major sources and sources that are undergoing major modifications to obtain a permit. A major source for PSD is defined as any source that emits or has the potential to emit either 100 or 250 tons per year of a regulated pollutant, dependent on the source category.
55
In nonattainment areas, the major source threshold for NSR is at most 100 tons per year, and is less in some areas depending on the pollutant and the nonattainment classification of the area.
54
Other sources required to obtain Title V operating permits include all sources that are required to have PSD permits, “affected sources” under the ARP, and sources subject to NSPS or NESHAP (although non-major sources under those programs can be exempted by rule).
55
The 100 tons per year level is the level at which existing sources in 28 industry categories listed in the CAA are classified as major sources for the PSD program. The 250 tons per year level is the level at which existing sources in all other categories are classified as major sources for PSD purposes.
EPA performed some preliminary analyses to generally estimate the existing stock of major sources in order to then estimate the approximate number of new facilities that could be required to obtain NSR/PSD permits.
56
For example, if the 100 and 250 tons per year thresholds were applied in the context of GHGs, the Agency estimates the number of PSD permits required to be issued each year would increase by more than a factor of 10 (
i.e.
, more than 2,000 to 3,000 permits per year). The additional permits would generally be issued to smaller industrial sources, as well as large office and residential buildings, hotels, large retail establishments, and similar facilities.
56
For more information about the major source analysis please see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318.
For more information about the affect of thresholds considered for this rule on the number of reporters, emissions coverage and costs, please see Table VIII-2 in Section VIII of this preamble and Table IV-47 of the RIA found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-002.
Determining applicability to the rule.
The thresholds listed in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A fall into three groups: Capacity, emissions, or “all in.” The thresholds developed are generally equivalent to a threshold of 25,000 metric tons of CO
2
e per year of actual emissions.
EPA carefully examined thresholds and source categories that might be able
to report utilizing a capacity metric, for example, tons of product produced per year. A capacity-based threshold could be the least burdensome alternative for reporting because a facility would not have to estimate emissions to determine if the rule applies. However, EPA faced two key challenges in trying to develop capacity thresholds. First, in most cases we did not have sufficient data to determine an appropriate capacity threshold. Secondly, for some source categories defining the appropriate capacity metric was not feasible. For example, for some source categories, GHG emissions are not related to production capacity, but are more affected by design and operating factors.
The scope of the proposed emission threshold is emissions from all applicable source categories located within the physical boundary of a facility. To determine emissions to compare to the threshold, a facility that directly emits GHGs would estimate total emissions from all source categories for which emission estimation methods are provided in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subparts C through JJ. The use of total emissions is necessary because some facilities are comprised of multiple process units or collocated source categories that individually may not be large emitters, but that emit significant levels of GHGs collectively. The calculation of total emissions for the purposes of determining whether a facility exceeds the threshold should not include biogenic CO
2
emissions (e.g., those resulting from combustion of biofuels). Therefore, these emissions, while accounted for and reported separately, are not considered in a facility's emissions totals.
In order to ensure that the reporting of GHG emissions from all source categories within a facility's boundaries is not unduly burdensome, EPA has proposed flexibility in two ways. First, a facility would only have to report on the source categories for which there are methods provided in this rule. EPA has proposed methods only for source categories that typically contribute a relatively significant amount to a facility's total GHG emissions (e.g., EPA has not provided a method for a facility to account for the CH
4
emissions from coal piles). Second, for small facilities, EPA has proposed simplified emission estimation methods where feasible (e.g., stationary combustion equipment under a certain rating can use a simplified mass balance approach as opposed to more rigorous direct monitoring).
The proposed emissions threshold is based on actual emissions, with a few exceptions described below. An actual emission metric accounts for actual operating practices at each facility. A threshold based on potential emissions would bring in far more facilities including many small emitters. For example, under a potential emissions threshold, a facility that operates one shift a day would have to estimate emissions assuming three shifts per day, and would have to assume continuous use of feedstocks or fuels that result in the highest rate of GHG emissions absent enforceable limitations. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the twin goals of collecting accurate data on actual GHG emissions to the atmosphere and excluding small emitters from the rule. However, we note that emissions thresholds in some CAA rules are based on actual or potential emissions. Moreover, although actual emissions may change year to year due to fluctuations in the market and other factors, potential emissions are less subject to yearly fluctuations. We solicit comment on how considerations of actual and potential emissions should be incorporated into the proposed threshold.
There is one source category that has a proposed threshold based on GHG generation instead of emissions—municipal landfills. In this case, a GHG generation threshold is more appropriate because some landfills have installed CH
4
gas recovery systems. A gas recovery system collects a percentage of the generated CH
4
, and destroys it, through flaring or use in energy recovery equipment. The use of a threshold based on GHG generation prior to recovery is proposed because it ensures reporting from landfills that have similar CH
4
emission generating activities (e.g., ensures that landfills of similar size and management practices are reporting).
As described in Section III of this preamble, in the case of 19 source categories all of the facilities that have that particular source category within their boundaries would be subject to the proposed rule. For these facilities, our analysis indicated that all facilities with that source category emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO
2
e per year or that only a few facilities emit marginally below this level. These source categories include large manufacturing operations such as petroleum refineries and cement production. This simplifies the applicability determination for facilities with these source categories.
When determining if a facility passes a relevant applicability threshold, direct emissions from the source categories would be assessed separately from the emissions from the supplier categories. For example, a company that produces and supplies coal would be subject to reporting as a supplier of coal (40 CFR part 98, subpart KK), because coal suppliers is an “all in” supplier category. But the company would separately evaluate whether or not emissions from their underground coal mines (40 CFR part 98, subpart FF) would also be reported.
In addition, the source categories listed in proposed 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1) and (2) and the supply operations listed in proposed 40 CFR 98.2(a)(4) represent EPA's best estimate of the large emitters of GHGs or large suppliers of fuel and industrial GHGs. In order to ensure that all large emitters are included in this reporting program, proposed 40 CFR 98.2(a)(3) also covers any facility that emits more than 25,000 metric tons of CO
2
e per year from stationary fuel combustion units at source categories that are not listed in proposed 40 CFR 98.2(a)(2). To minimize the reporting burden, such facilities would be required to submit an annual report that covers stationary combustion emissions.
Furthermore, we recognize that a potentially large number of facilities would need to calculate their emissions in order to determine whether or not they had to report under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(a)(3). Therefore, to further minimize the burden on those facilities, we are proposing that any facility that has an aggregate maximum rated heat input capacity of the stationary fuel combustion units less than 30 mmBtu/hr may presume it has emissions below the threshold. According to our analysis, a facility with stationary combustion units that have a maximum rated heat input capacity of less that 30 mmBtu/hr, operating full time (e.g., 8,760 hours per year) with all types of fossil fuel would not exceed 25,000 metric tons CO
2
e/yr (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-049). Under this approach, we estimate that approximately 30,000 facilities would have to assess whether or not they had to report according to proposed 40 CFR 98.2(a)(3).
57
Of the 30,000, approximately 13,000 facilities would likely meet the threshold and have to report. Therefore, an additional 17,000 facilities may have to assess their applicability but potentially not meet the threshold for reporting. We concluded that is a reasonable number of assessments in order to ensure all
large emitters in the U.S. are included in this reporting program. We are seeking comment on (1) whether the presumption for maximum rated heat input capacity of 30 mmBtu/hr is appropriate, (2) whether a different (lower or higher) mmBtu/hr capacity presumption should be set and (3) whether other capacity thresholds should be developed for different types of facilities. The comments should contain data and analysis to support the use of different thresholds.
57
This estimate is based on the Energy and Environmental Analysis, “Characterization of the U.S. Industrial/Commercial Boiler Population” (2005) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-050). We assumed 3 boilers per manufacturing facility and 1 boiler per commercial facility. For additional information on the impact to these 30,000 facilities, please see the ICR and RIA (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-002).
We are proposing that once a facility is subject to this reporting rule, it would continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years. (As discussed in section IV.K. of this preamble, EPA is proposing that this rule require the submission of data into the foreseeable future, although EPA is soliciting comment on other options.) The purpose of the thresholds is to exclude small sources from reporting. For sources that trigger the thresholds, it is important for the purpose of policy analysis to be able to track trends in emissions and understand factors that influence emission levels. The data would be most useful if the population of reporting sources is consistent, complete and not varying over time.
The one exception to the proposed requirement to continue submitting reports even if a facility falls below the reporting threshold is active underground coal mines. When coal is no longer produced at a mine, the mine often becomes abandoned. As discussed in Section V.FF of this preamble, we are proposin
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.