Greenhouse Gas Inventories for source categories that may be relevant
for the United States; and (4) once the list was completed, we
systematically reviewed those source categories to ensure that they
included the most significant sources of GHG emissions and the most
significant suppliers of GHG-emitting products. We also confirmed that
the reported GHGs can be measured with an appropriate level of
accuracy.\148\ As described in sections IV.A through F of this
preamble, we are requesting comment on expanding existing source
categories or developing other new source categories based on the EPA's
current understanding of U.S. GHG trends and where we have identified
that additional data may be necessary to better understand GHG data
from these specific sectors to inform future policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Refer to the preamble to the April 10, 2009 proposal (74
FR 16465) for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for its
original section of source categories to include.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The addition of these source categories would provide data that
would help eliminate data gaps, improve the coverage of the GHGRP, and
inform the development of GHG policies and programs under the CAA. The
GHGRP data continues to additionally be used as a resource for the U.S.
GHG Inventory, providing not only annual emissions information, but
also other annual information such as activity data and emission
factors that can improve and refine national emission estimates and
trends over time. Including these additional source categories would
also allow the EPA to gather data that could improve the completeness
of the emissions estimates presented in the U.S. GHG Inventory. For
example, we are requesting comment on whether the EPA should collect
data on energy consumption, a source category for which part 98 does
not currently require reporting and which would support data analyses
related to informing voluntary energy efficiency programs, providing
information on industrial sectors where currently little data is
reported to GHGRP, and informing QA/QC of the U.S. GHG Inventory.
Inclusion of certain of these source categories would reduce potential
data gaps in the GHGRP by incorporating emission sources that are
recommended by (and for which there are existing calculation
methodologies available in) the 2006 IPCC Guidelines used to prepare
the U.S. GHG Inventory. Specifically, the IPCC 2006 Guidelines
currently identify ceramics production, calcium carbide production, and
glyoxal, glyoxylic acid, and caprolactam production as potential
sources of GHG emissions. However, emissions from these processes are
not currently estimated in the GHGRP or the U.S. GHG Inventory. The
collection of data from these source categories (e.g., ceramic
production, calcium carbide production, and glyoxal, glyoxylic acid,
and caprolactam production) would improve the coverage of the GHGRP and
provide for more accurate estimates of U.S. GHG emissions that could
then be used to inform development of EPA policies and programs.
    The EPA is requesting comment on some source categories, such as
coke calciners, that we have identified because they may potentially
contribute significant emissions that are not currently reported. In
other cases, through implementation of the program, the EPA has
identified facilities representative of these source categories that
are currently reporting under another part 98 source category, and
relying on that other source category's calculation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements for the purposes of estimating total facility
GHG emissions. However, these facilities may not in fact be reporting
complete or accurate estimates of emissions because appropriate
estimation methods are currently unavailable for the source category.
We are also requesting comment on source categories where we have
identified emerging industries that utilize captured carbon emissions,
and as a result would improve our knowledge of carbon utilization.
    Inclusion of specific requirements for these source categories in
part 98 would provide a means for the EPA to better estimate and
understand U.S. GHG emissions and trends that could inform future
policies. Therefore, we are soliciting comment on these source
categories and the appropriate accounting methodologies, monitoring,
and associated reporting requirements that should be considered in
development of a future proposed rulemaking. Sections IV.A through IV.F
of this preamble provide additional information on the EPA's
consideration of including these source categories in the GHGRP and the
information we are seeking.
    The EPA is also considering proposing future amendments to subpart
F of part 98 (Aluminum Production) to include reporting for additional
sources of emissions, to update the cell technology types reflected in
the rule, and to revise or replace the measurement and calculation
methodologies with newer, improved methodologies. These updates are
being considered based on new information and methodologies identified
from the 2019 Refinement. Section IV.G of this preamble provides
additional information on the EPA's consideration of these amendments
and the information we are seeking.

A. Energy Consumption

    Indirect GHG emissions can result from on-site energy consumption,
primarily the use of purchased electricity and thermal energy products.
In this preamble we refer broadly to purchased electricity and thermal
energy products such as steam, heat (in the form of hot water), and
cooling (in the form of chilled water) as ``purchased energy'' or as
``purchased energy products.'' These terms expressly exclude the
purchase of fuels associated with direct emissions.
    In the 2009 GHGRP proposal, the EPA sought comment on, but did not
propose, reporting related to electricity consumption. See 74 FR 16479,
April 10, 2009. Comments received, as well as our responses to those
comments, are summarized in the 2009 final rule. See 74 FR 56288-56289,
October 30, 2009. We note that in 2009 some commenters expressed
concerns regarding the collection of data on purchased electricity for
several reasons. Primarily, they said it would constitute double
counting if direct emissions were collected from electric utilities and
the EPA also collected electricity consumption from facilities and
estimated emissions attributable to the facilities' electricity
consumption. Others stated that collecting information on electricity
purchases was outside the scope of the rule, that it is not useful
information in attempting to quantify emissions, that it would be
burdensome for facilities, and that it is CBI that companies are not
able to share with the EPA. In 2009, we responded to these concerns
stating that collection of electricity purchase data under the GHGRP is
consistent with the

Consolidated Appropriations language,\149\ and provides valuable
information to the EPA and stakeholders in the development of climate
change policy and programs. We still believe this to be true today.
Ultimately, the EPA decided at that time not to propose requirements
for facilities to report either their electricity purchases or indirect
emissions from electricity consumption. In the 2009 final rulemaking,
we stated that acquiring such data may be important in the future, and
we were exploring options for possible future data collection on
electricity purchases and indirect emissions and the uses of such data.
We also said that such a future data collection on indirect emissions
would complement the EPA's interests in energy efficiency and renewable
energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161,
121 Stat. 1844, 2128. Congress reaffirmed interest in a GHG
Reporting Rule, and provided additional funding, in the 2009
Appropriations Act (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L.
110-329, 122 Stat. 3574-3716).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are requesting comment on whether the EPA should
expand the GHGRP so that facilities that are subject to the GHGRP would
be required to submit new, summary data elements quantifying their
consumption of purchased energy products and characterizing associated
markets and products (e.g., regulated or de-regulated electricity
markets and renewable attributes of purchased products). Under this
approach, facilities would not be required to quantify indirect
emissions, and indirect emissions would not count towards GHGRP
applicability. However, the EPA could estimate indirect emissions using
the purchased energy data. We solicit comment on this potential
approach and on advantages and disadvantages of limiting the scope of
any new reporting requirements to compiling and reporting purchased
energy records.
    The EPA is seeking comment on how an energy consumption source
category should be defined, whether it should include purchased thermal
energy products, and whether or not associated reporting requirements
should differentiate purchased thermal energy products from purchased
electricity.
    The EPA also seeks comment on the approach of limiting
applicability of an energy consumption source category to facilities
that are currently subject to the GHGRP. For example, should the EPA
consider adding new sector-specific requirements for operators of EAFs
or other operations that may meet all their energy needs with purchased
power and that may not trigger applicability under the GHGRP? The EPA
is seeking comment on specific industrial sectors or technologies that
may not be completely represented within the GHGRP but that should be
considered when evaluating the performance of GHGRP sources (including
usage of purchased energy) within discrete sectors.
    The EPA also seeks comment on measures that would minimize the
burden of reporting parameters related to purchased energy
transactions. The EPA understands that cogeneration contracts between
host facilities and energy producers are governed by clear metering and
billing requirements. Accordingly, the EPA is seeking comment on our
understanding that monitoring and recordkeeping systems are already in
place for purchased energy transactions, and the incremental reporting
burden would be minimal. We are also seeking comment on existing
industry standards for assessing the accuracy of the monitoring systems
used for purchased energy transactions.

B. Ceramics Production

    The ceramics manufacturing industry comprises a variety of products
manufactured from nonmetallic, inorganic materials, many of which are
clay-based. The major sectors of ceramic products include bricks and
roof tiles, wall and floor tiles, table and ornamental ware, sanitary
ware, refractory products, vitrified clay pipes, expanded clay
products, inorganic bonded abrasives, and technical ceramics (e.g.,
aerospace, automotive, electronic, or biomedical applications). The
general process of manufacturing ceramic products consists of raw
material processing (grinding, calcining, and drying), forming, firing,
and final processing (which may include grinding, polishing, surface
coating, annealing, and/or chemical treatment).
    GHG emissions are produced during the calcination process in the
kiln or dryer and from any combustion sources. According to the IPCC
2006 Guidelines,\150\ CO2 emissions result from the
calcination of the raw material (particularly clay, shale, limestone,
dolomite, and witherite) and the use of limestone as a flux. Carbonates
are heated to high temperatures in a kiln or dryer, producing oxides
and CO2. Additionally, CO2, CH4, and
N2O emissions are produced during combustion in the kiln or
dryer and from other combustion sources on site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
Volume 3, Industrial Processes and Product Use, Mineral Industry
Emissions. 2006. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_2_Ch2_Mineral_Industry.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is considering future amendments to the GHGRP to add a
source category related to ceramics production or to incorporate
ceramics into an existing subpart. Currently, under the GHGRP, ceramic
production facilities report their GHG emissions from stationary fuel
combustion sources if those emissions exceed the 25,000
mtCO2e reporting threshold. Some ceramic production
facilities should also report miscellaneous uses of carbonate if they
meet applicability requirements of subpart U of part 98 (Miscellaneous
Uses of Carbonate).\151\ Addition of a ceramics production source
category would likely include process emissions and would improve the
EPA's understanding of facility-level emissions from this source
category by adding to the completeness of the data collected under the
GHGRP, and better inform future EPA policy. Additionally, such data
would be available to inform estimates and improve completeness of the
U.S. GHG Inventory, consistent with methodological guidance and
completeness principle outlined in the 2006 IPCC guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Subpart U of part 98 includes any equipment that uses the
carbonates limestone, dolomite, ankerite, magnesite, siderite,
rhodochrosite, or sodium carbonate and emits CO2.
Facilities are considered to emit CO2 if they consume at
least 2,000 tons per year of carbonates heated to a temperature
sufficient to allow the calcination reaction to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the 2018 United States Census Bureau, 815 corporations
produce ceramic products; \152\ however, only sixteen facilities owned
by nine of these corporations reported under subpart C of the GHGRP
(General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) for RY2019. No ceramics
manufacturers currently report under subpart U of part 98. While some
ceramics manufacturers may use some carbonates directly, it is likely
the majority of the carbonates used are those contained in clay rather
than pure carbonates. Additionally, some ceramic tile kilns may not
heat to temperatures sufficient for calcination to occur, and therefore
would not meet the applicability requirements of subpart U. For these
reasons, emissions from ceramics manufacturers may not be appropriately
captured by the current part 98. Although the nine corporations
reported nearly 1 million mtCO2e from combustion under
subpart C for RY2019, we estimate, using United States Geological
Survey (USGS) reports \153\ on the tons of clays sold or

used in the United States and IPCC default emission factor values, that
the total process CO2 emissions from carbonates for all
ceramic production facilities in the United States is an additional
1.16 million mtCO2e. We are considering whether adding a
ceramic production source category, as a separate source category or
combined with either the existing subpart N of part 98 or subpart U of
part 98, would provide a more accurate estimation methodology for these
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See U.S. Census Bureau website (https://www.census.gov/naics/), accessed March 2021.
    \153\ USGS 2020 Mineral Commodity Summaries. Clay. U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, February 2020.
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/mineral-commodity-summaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methods for calculating GHG emissions from ceramic production are
available in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,\154\ including methods based on:
(1) default emission factors that assume limestone and dolomite are the
only carbonates contained in clay and that 85 percent of carbonates
consumed are limestone and 15 percent of carbonates consumed are
dolomite; (2) facility-specific data on the quantity of limestone
versus dolomite consumed; and (3) a carbonate input approach that
accounts for all carbonates (species and amounts) and which mirrors the
methodology used for estimating CO2 emissions from glass
production in subpart N of part 98. We are considering whether
emissions could be estimated for the ceramics production source
category by modifying these methodologies to consider facility-specific
inputs. Facilities could potentially also use a CEMS to monitor
CO2 emissions from the kiln or dryer and use the CEMS data
to report GHG emissions. More information about these potential methods
can be found in the document, Technical Support Document for Ceramics:
Proposed Rule for The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
Volume 3, Industrial Processes and Product Use, Mineral Industry
Emissions. 2006. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_2_Ch2_Mineral_Industry.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA seeks comment on whether it should add a source category
related to ceramics production, and if so, seeks information that could
be related to source category definitions, calculation methodologies,
and reporting requirements. For example, we are soliciting comment on
how the source category should be defined, and whether it should be
included as a separate category or as part of an existing category,
either subpart N (Glass Production) or subpart U (Miscellaneous Uses of
Carbonate). We also seek comment on which IPCC calculation
methodologies or other methodologies, including those listed in the
document, Technical Support Document for Ceramics: Proposed Rule for
the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, should be used, with
consideration of what information is readily available to reporters.
Finally, we are requesting input on available monitoring methodologies
or quality assurance requirements that should be used, including what
data is readily available for reporting that would help to support
emissions estimates.

C. Calcium Carbide Production

    Calcium carbide (CaC2) is used in production of
acetylene (for cutting and welding) and calcium cyanamide (for
industrial agricultural fertilizers). CaC2 is manufactured
from lime and carbon-containing raw materials (usually petroleum coke),
by heating the mixture to approximately 2,000 degrees Celsius in an
EAF. Use of carbon-containing raw materials in the production process
results in CO2 and CO emissions. In addition, any presence
of hydrogen-containing volatile compounds and sulfur in the carbon-
containing raw materials may cause formation of CH4 and
SO2 emissions. Also, production of acetylene from
CaC2 results in CO2 emissions.
    The EPA is considering future amendments to the GHGRP to add a
source category related to CaC2 production (which may
potentially also include acetylene production if a facility produces
acetylene at their CaC2 production facility). The IPCC 2006
Guidelines currently identify both silicon carbide production and
calcium carbide production as potential sources of GHG emissions.\155\
Although the GHGRP currently accounts for emissions from silicon
carbide production processes, and the GHGRP collects data from silicon
carbide production under subpart BB, emissions from CaC2
production are not explicitly accounted for. Addition of a
CaC2 production source category to the GHGRP would better
align with intergovernmental approaches to estimating emissions,
improve the completeness of the data collected under the GHGRP, add to
the EPA's understanding of the GHG data, and better inform future EPA
policy. Further, such data would be available to improve the estimates
provided in the U.S. GHG Inventory, by improving completeness and
comparability of the estimates consistent with the 2006 IPCC
guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,
Volume 3, Industrial Processes and Product Use, Mineral Industry
Emissions. 2006. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_2_Ch2_Mineral_Industry.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has identified a CaC2 production facility
currently operating in the United States that is voluntarily reporting
GHG emissions under subpart K (Ferroalloy Production) of part 98.
Annual emissions from the reporting facility range between less than
10,000 and 50,000 mtCO2e. We are considering whether adding
the calcium carbide source category, either as a separate source
category or combined with the existing silicon carbide production
category under subpart BB of part 98, would provide more accurate
applicability requirements and emissions estimation methodologies for
these types of facilities. We are also considering, where acetylene
production from CaC2 occurs at the same facility, whether we
should account for emissions from these sources.
    We are considering several options for how emissions could be
estimated for CaC2 production at a facility-level based on
methods available in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, including methods based
on: (1) default emission factors applied to activity data on petroleum
coke consumption or CaC2 production; (2) a carbon
consumption methodology that assumes a stoichiometric conversion where
two-thirds of the carbon consumed is in the CaC2 product and
one-third is emitted as CO2 (similar to the estimation
methods used for the silicon carbide production source category in
subpart BB); and (3) a carbon balance method that uses measured
quantities of carbon consumed in the process and carbon contained in
the CaC2 product. Facilities could potentially also estimate
CO2 emissions using CEMS. More information about these
potential methods and the production of CaC2 can be found in
the document, Technical Support Document for Calcium Carbide: Proposed
Rule for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, available in the docket
for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424).
    The EPA seeks comment on whether it should add a source category
related to CaC2 production, and if so, seeks information
related to source category definitions, calculation methodologies, and
reporting requirements. For example, we solicit comment on how the
source category should be defined, and whether it should be included as
a separate category or, due to similarity in estimation methods, as
part of the existing silicon carbide production category. We also
request comment on whether additional CaC2 production
facilities (other than Carbide Industries

LLC in Louisville, KY) are currently operating in the United States. In
addition, we seek comment on which tier calculation methodology as well
as the monitoring or measurement methodologies should be used,
particularly the methodology(s) for which facilities would have
information readily available. Furthermore, we seek comment on whether
any CaC2 production facility currently operating in the
United States uses the CaC2 product to produce acetylene at
the same facility, and whether emissions from acetylene production
should be accounted for in the emission estimate methodology. Finally,
we seek input on available monitoring methodologies that should be
used, as well as input on what data are readily available for reporting
that would help to support emissions estimates.

D. Glyoxal, Glyoxylic Acid, and Caprolactam Production

    Glyoxal (C2H2O2) is used in a
variety of applications including as a crosslinking agent in various
polymers for paper coatings, textile finishes, adhesives, leather
tanning, cosmetics, and oil-drilling fluids; as a sulfur scavenger in
natural gas sweetening processes; as a biocide in water treatment; as a
chemical intermediate in the production of pharmaceuticals, dyestuffs,
glyoxylic acid, and other chemicals; and to improve moisture resistance
in wood treatment. Glyoxal is also being used as a less toxic
substitute for formaldehyde in some applications such as wood adhesives
and embalming fluids. Glyoxal is commercially manufactured by either:
(1) the gas-phase catalytic oxidation of ethylene glycol with air in
the presence of a silver or copper catalyst (the LaPorte process); or
(2) the liquid-phase oxidation of acetaldehyde with nitric acid.
Glyoxylic acid (C2H2O3) is used mainly
in the synthesis of vanillin, allantoin, and several antibiotics like
amoxicillin, ampicillin, and the fungicide azoxystrobin. Glyoxylic acid
is exclusively produced by the oxidation of glyoxal with nitric acid.
Caprolactam (C6H11NO) is a monomer used in carpet
manufacturing. The addition of hydroxylamine sulphate to cyclohexanone
produces cyclohexanone oxime, which can then be converted to
caprolactam.
    The production of any of these organic compounds (glyoxal,
glyoxylic acid, and caprolactam) results in N2O and
CO2 emissions. N2O emissions are created from
either oxidation or reduction steps that occur in each process. Our
knowledge of the mechanisms that generate CO2 emissions from
glyoxal and glyoxylic acid production is less understood. The IPCC 2006
Guidelines state that CO2 emissions generated from
caprolactam production are unlikely to be significant in well-managed
plants.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ IPCC 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Volume 3, Industrial Processes and Product Use. Chapter
3, Chemical Industry Emissions. 2006. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_3_Ch3_Chemical_Industry.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is considering future amendments to the GHGRP to add a
source category related to glyoxal, glyoxylic acid, and caprolactam
production to improve the completeness of the data collected under the
GHGRP, add to the EPA's understanding of the GHG data and better inform
future EPA policy. Emissions from these processes are not currently
estimated in U.S. GHG Inventory. Therefore, once collected, such data
would be available to and improve on the estimates provided in the U.S.
GHG Inventory, by incorporating the recommendations of the 2006 IPCC
guidelines, which currently identify glyoxal, glyoxylic acid, and
caprolactam production as potential sources of GHG emissions.\157\
Grouping these three organic compounds together into one source
category for GHGRP purposes would be reasonable because the 2006 IPCC
guidelines methodology for estimating GHG emissions from the production
of these compounds does the same.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Id.
    \158\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are unsure whether there are any glyoxal and/or glyoxylic acid
production facilities currently operating in the United States. Based
on available 2015 data reported under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), four facilities could be domestic manufacturers of
glyoxal.159 160 Also, although four facilities reported
glyoxylic acid data under the TSCA, each of these facilities reported
no domestically manufactured glyoxylic acid. We note that more recent
data for 2016 through 2019 are expected to be published by the TSCA,
but these data were not available at the time of writing this proposal.
Nevertheless, it is possible that there are other glyoxal and glyoxylic
acid production facilities operating in the United States, but that are
not reporting under the TSCA because their total production volume is
less than 25,000 pounds per year, or they are exempt from reporting
because they are a small manufacturer based on their total company
sales revenue. Currently, two caprolactam production facilities report
GHG emissions under subpart C of part 98 (General Stationary Fuel
Combustion Sources) (each facility reported RY2019 combustion emissions
of approximately 600,000 to 800,000 mtCO2e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ ChemView. Compilation of data submitted under TSCA in 2012
and 2016. https://chemview.epa.gov/chemview. Accessed April 2021.
    \160\ In 2015, four facilities indicated that their glyoxal
production status (i.e., as a domestic manufacturer or as an
importer) and their quantities domestically manufactured and/or
imported, were CBI. Thus, it is possible that one or more of these
four glyoxal production facilities could be a domestic manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methods for calculating N2O emissions from glyoxal,
glyoxylic acid, and caprolactam production are available in the 2006
IPCC Guidelines, including methods based on: (1) total nationwide
production quantities using default uncontrolled emission factors; (2)
plant-specific production quantities using plant-specific or default
N2O generation and control emission factors; and (3) plant-
specific production quantities and direct measurement of emissions to
calculate plant-specific emission factors.\161\ Although the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines do not provide methods for calculating CO2
emissions from glyoxal and glyoxylic acid production,\162\ we are
considering use of either a default emission factor approach for
N2O and a mass balance approach for CO2, or
development of site-specific factors for both N2O and
CO2. In the first approach, N2O emissions would
be calculated using production and the IPCC default factors, and for
CO2, the mass balance procedures would be similar to mass
balances required for existing subparts in the GHGRP such as
petrochemical production (subpart X). Specifically, site-specific
quantities of all carbon-containing feedstocks and products would be
determined, and CO2 emissions would be calculated assuming
all carbon from the feedstock that does not end up in product is
emitted as CO2. We recognize that if the N2O is
controlled using something other than thermal or catalytic destruction
(that would not convert hydrocarbons to CO2), then this mass
balance approach would not work for CO2. Alternatively,
N2O and CO2 emissions could be calculated using
site-specific production and site-specific emission factors that are
developed based on flow measurement and periodic sampling and
compositional analysis of the

streams to the control and exiting the control. These emission factors
would be multiplied by the site-specific production quantity to
calculate emissions. More information about these N2O and
CO2 emission calculation methods and the production of
glyoxal, glyoxylic acid, and caprolactam can be found in the document,
Technical Support Document for Glyoxal, Glyoxylic Acid, and Caprolactum
Production: Proposed Rule for The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0424).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ IPCC 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Volume 3, Industrial Processes and Product Use. Chapter
3, Chemical Industry Emissions. 2006. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_3_Ch3_Chemical_Industry.pdf.
    \162\ As previously mentioned, the 2006 IPCC Guidelines,
CO2 emissions generated from
C6H11NO production are likely to be
insignificant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA seeks comment on whether it should add a source category
related to glyoxal, glyoxylic acid, and caprolactam production, and if
so, seeks information that could be related to source category
definitions, calculation methodologies, and reporting requirements. For
example, we solicit comment on how the source category should be
defined. In addition, as previously mentioned, although we are aware of
at least two caprolactam production facilities, we are unsure whether
there any glyoxal and/or glyoxylic acid production facilities currently
operating in the U.S.; therefore, we seek information about whether
these types of facilities are currently operating in the U.S. We
request comment on whether facilities have installed abatement
equipment. We also solicit comment on which tier calculation
methodologies or other methodologies, including those outlined in the
document Technical Support Document for Glyoxal, Glyoxylic Acid, and
Caprolactum Production: Proposed Rule for The Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program, available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424), should be used to determine GHG emissions from
these types of facilities and which information or inputs for these
methodologies is readily available. Furthermore, as previously
mentioned, although we are considering a mass balance approach to
determine CO2 emissions from these types of facilities, our
knowledge of the mechanisms that generate CO2 emissions from
glyoxal and glyoxylic acid production are not fully understood;
therefore, we request information on this subject. Finally, we seek
input on available monitoring methodologies and quality assurance
procedures that should be used; and input on what data are readily
available for reporting that would help to support emissions estimates.

E. Coke Calcining

    Calcined petroleum coke is a nearly pure carbon material used
primarily to make anodes for the aluminum, steel, and titanium smelting
industries. The process used to produce calcined petroleum coke is
called coke calcination and is commonly performed in coke calciners
that are rotary kilns or rotary furnaces equipped with an afterburner.
Coke calcining uses ``green'' petroleum coke with low metals content
(commonly called ``anode grade petroleum coke'') as a feed material.
The coke is then heated to high temperatures in the absence of air or
oxygen for the purpose of removing impurities or volatile substances in
the green coke. Auxiliary fuel is needed to start-up the kiln or
furnace, but once the desired calcining temperature is reached, process
gas consisting of volatile organics and sulfur-containing compounds
driven from the coke are used as the primary fuel to maintain calciner
temperatures. Similarly, the coke calciner afterburner combusts
primarily the process off-gas and requires little, if any, auxiliary
fuel except during start-up. The afterburner is used to convert excess
process gas to CO2 and SO2, and a waste heat
boiler may be used to recover energy from this combustion process. The
afterburner will also likely release trace amounts of CH4
and N2O, similarly to other stationary combustion devices.
The afterburner off-gas is emitted to the atmosphere and is the primary
source of GHG emissions from this process.
    Coke calcining processes may be co-located with petroleum
refineries or may be independent facilities. Currently, coke calcining
processes co-located at petroleum refineries must calculate and report
emissions from coke calciners following the methodologies specified in
subpart Y of part 98 (Petroleum Refineries). Several coke calciners not
co-located at petroleum refineries report emissions that are calculated
using the calculation methodologies under subpart C of part 98 (General
Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources). The calculation methodologies in
subparts C and Y, for facilities not using CEMS, are substantially
different, resulting in inconsistent characterization of emissions
between the two populations of sources. Specifically, the subpart C
emission calculations assume that the carbon content of the fuel burned
is represented by the default carbon content of petroleum coke and that
the carbon in the petroleum coke is fully combusted and converted to
CO2 whereas the subpart Y calculation uses a mass balance
approach to account for the fact that the carbon content in the final
product is higher than the carbon content in the petroleum coke fed to
the unit, thereby more accurately accounting for the carbon content in
the process gas actually combusted. The EPA is considering future
amendments to the GHGRP to add a coke calcining source category to
require specific calculation methodologies and reporting requirements
for coke calciners not co-located with petroleum refineries, in order
to improve the completeness of the data collected under the GHGRP and
better inform future EPA policy. Incorporating a new source category
would improve the consistency of emission calculation methodologies for
coke calcining processes units regardless of whether nor not they are
co-located with a petroleum refinery. The EPA seeks comment on whether
a separate source category for coke calcining facilities should be
added to the GHGRP.
    The EPA identified 15 coke calcining facilities operating 29 coke
calcining process units in the United States. Most coke calcining
facilities are located at or near a petroleum refinery. Three of the
facilities report GHG emission under subpart Y. The remaining
facilities either do not report coke calcining emissions or report
emissions under subpart C. Based on data reported to the GHGRP for
RY2019, the typical coke calcining facility emits 150,000
mtCO2e per year. With 15 operating facilities in the U.S.,
it is estimated that these facilities emit 2.2 million
mtCO2e per year. The EPA seeks information on the total
number of facilities currently operating coke calciners in the United
States.
    There are four possible calculation methodologies for determining
GHG emissions from coke calciners, shown in order of most accurate to
least: (1) use of CEMS; (2) a mass balance using the carbon content of
the green and calcined coke; (3) a mass balance using a fixed methane
content in the coke and using a mass reduction in the quantity of coke
fed to the process and the quantity of coke leaving the process; and
(4) using either default high heat values and CO2 emission
factors or assuming the reduction in the mass of coke is solely due to
the combustion of green coke fed to the calciner. More information
about these methods and the coke calcining process can be found in the
memorandum, Technical Support Document for Coke Calcining: Proposed
Rule for The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, available in the docket
for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424).

    Subpart Y allows the use of CEMS (methodology (1), as noted above).
If CEMS are not used, subpart Y requires the use of a carbon mass
balance approach using equation Y-13 (methodology (2), as noted above).
Facilities using equation Y-13 must measure the mass of petroleum coke
in and out of the process and the carbon content of the coke in and out
of the process. Subpart Y also requires estimating CH4 and
N2O emissions based on the CO2 emissions, and the
ratio of the CH4 or N2O emission factor for
``petroleum products'' in Table C-2 of subpart C and the CO2
emission factor for petroleum coke in Table C-1 of subpart C of part
98. If a new subpart for coke calcining is developed, the EPA seeks
comment on the appropriate calculation method(s) to require. The EPA is
also seeking comment on whether coke calcining facilities are already
collecting the necessary information to estimate GHG emissions using
methodologies (2), (3), and (4), as described in this section. We are
also seeking comment on appropriate monitoring for the four
methodologies described in the Technical Support Document for Coke
Calcining: Proposed Rule for The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0424). Finally, we are seeking input on appropriate missing data
and quality assurance procedures.

F. CO2 Utilization

    As mentioned in the previous section, CCUS refers to a set of
technologies that capture CO2 from the emissions of large
point sources or ambient air, transport it, compress it, and either
utilize it or inject it in deep underground for safe and secure
storage. CO2 utilization is a quickly growing area of
interest among stakeholders and there is currently a lack of publicly
available and nationally consistent GHG data regarding CO2
utilization. As technologies scale up and markets develop for
CO2 utilization, the potential for GHG mitigation through
CO2 utilization is expected to greatly expand. There are a
broad range of CO2 utilization pathways (i.e., technological
approaches for carbon utilization), with each utilization pathway
having its own set of specific characteristics in terms of products
manufactured, technical maturity, market potential, economics,
potential to displace existing products or sources of CO2,
and lifecycle GHG impact.
    The EPA is considering amendments to part 98 to add a source
category related to CO2 utilization. While part 98 has
source categories related to Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (subpart PP),
Injection of Carbon Dioxide (subpart UU) and Geologic Sequestration of
Carbon Dioxide (subpart RR), it does not have a source category that is
solely related to CO2 utilization. The inclusion of
CO2 utilization as a source category in part 98 could fill a
critical informational gap and inform future policy and programs under
the CAA.
    The EPA seeks comment on whether we should add a source category
related to CO2 utilization, and if so, seeks information
related to source category definition; calculation, monitoring and QA/
QC methodologies; and reporting requirements.
    The EPA seeks comment on how the source category would be defined.
In order to define the source category, the EPA seeks information to
contextualize potential reporters and understand how this reporting
would relate to other source categories of the GHGRP. For example, the
EPA seeks comment on different types of end products that utilize
CO2 (currently and potentially), the amount of captured
CO2 used per unit of production or manufacture (gallons,
metric tons, etc.) for different processes (currently and potentially),
including processes that do not result in manufacture of marketable
product (e.g., ex-situ mineralization for storage only). Additionally,
the EPA seeks comment on the total amount of captured CO2
being used in the end use per year for different manufacturing
processes or utilization pathways (currently and potentially),\163\
whether there should be a threshold for reporting, and if so, how that
threshold should be defined. The EPA seeks information on the total
number of facilities (currently and potentially), and how many
facilities would be reporting under different potential thresholds. The
EPA requests comment on whether particular CO2 utilization
pathways should be included in the source category, and if so, how
should those pathways be defined. The EPA also requests comment on
whether the source category should include reporting of not only
CO2, but also other greenhouse gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ The EPA notes that aggregated totals of primary end uses
for CO2 captured and produced are available on the GHGRP
website at https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/supply-underground-injection-and-geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA seeks comment on what calculation methodologies should be
used for purposes of part 98 reporting. For example, most source
categories reporting under part 98 focus on reporting of direct
emissions. Taking a similar approach for CO2 utilization
would exclude emissions associated with the end use of the
CO2 in the product. A full accounting of all GHGs from
cradle to grave, including the potential to displace an existing
product or other existing source of CO2, would be needed to
understand the product's life cycle and total GHGs emitted. To that
end, the EPA seeks input regarding whether a GHG LCA should be
required, and if so, what information, protocols, guidance, and/or
models would be required to conduct the LCA, who should validate it,
what information would need to be reported to support the LCA
validation, and to what extent LCA information is already reported
through other GHGRP subparts.
    In addition to calculation methodologies, the EPA seeks comment on
what monitoring requirements should be in place and what methodologies
are recommended for monitoring and QA/QC. LCA is also relevant with
regard to monitoring, as CO2 can be stored and emitted at
various stages of the product's lifecycle, and the length of
CO2 storage varies between CO2 utilization
pathways and end products. The EPA also seeks comment on how permanence
of the CO2 storage should be defined and addressed if LCA
were not required. Similarly, the EPA seeks comment on information that
could be used for, and the feasibility of developing, sequestration
lifetimes for various products that result from different utilization
pathways. For both calculation and monitoring of CO2
utilization under part 98 reporting, the EPA seeks comment on QA/QC
practices to ensure consistent and accurate estimates.
    Finally, the EPA requests comment on the reporting requirements
related to CO2 utilization. CO2 utilization
technologies can vary widely (e.g., biological, chemical, or physical
processes), and many technologies are still emerging. The EPA seeks
input on how to manage reporting of these highly variable and emerging
technologies. For example, we are seeking comment on whether different
technology categories should have different calculation, monitoring,
and reporting requirements. Additionally, the EPA requests comment
regarding specific data elements to be reported. This includes the
amount of CO2 utilized, types of greenhouse gases to be
reported (i.e., reporting of not only CO2, but also other
greenhouse gases), and end uses of the CO2. It also includes
emissions of greenhouse gases throughout the lifecycle of a product,
and more specifically emissions of greenhouse gases during the
utilization process, the ultimate fate of the CO2 used, and
the

sequestration lifetime of the utilized CO2. EPA also seeks
comment on whether the source of CO2 used in the utilization
process should be reported, and if so, what information on the source
should be reported (e.g., captured versus extracted, sector or type of
facility from which the CO2 was captured and sourced, and/or
facility-specific information for where CO2 was captured and
sourced).

G. Aluminum Production

    The EPA is considering proposing to amend subpart F of part 98
(Aluminum Production) to add reporting of low voltage emissions and
cell-start-up emissions. The EPA is also considering updating cell
technology categories to be consistent with the 2019 Refinement. The
EPA is also considering updating or replacing the 2008 Protocol \164\
(used for development of the current emissions measurement methodology)
based on the 2020 International Aluminium Institute (IAI) ``Good
Practice Guidance: Measuring Perfluorocarbons'' \165\ (hereafter
referred to as ``2020 IAI Good Practice Guidance'') and the 2008 U.S.
EPA/IAI ``Protocol for Measurement of Tetrafluoromethane
(CF4) and Hexafluoroethane (C2F6)
Emissions from Primary Aluminum Production'' \166\ developed by the
IAI. Low voltage anode effects (LVAEs), where the cell voltage does
exceed the voltage threshold, have been identified as a source of
CF4 emissions and can be a significant portion of the
emissions in modern high-amperage cells with many large anodes.
Emissions from LVAEs would be better characterized by measuring
emission factors specifically for low voltage emissions. Emissions of
CF4 from LVAEs have not previously been included due to a
lack of data and methodology for their estimation. However, the 2019
Refinement provides several methods for estimating LVAE emissions. The
2019 Refinement also provides methods for potentially more accurately
characterizing cell start-up emissions and high voltage anode effect
emissions (HVAEs) through the addition of new non-linear Tier 3
methods. The 2020 IAI Good Practice Guidance provides additional
guidance on measurement frequency, calculation of emission factors
using new Tier 3 calculation methods available in the 2019 Refinement
and updating methods to account for both low voltage and high voltage
emissions of PFCs. In addition to improving the accuracy of emissions
reported the GHGRP and adding to the EPA's understanding of facility-
level emissions from this source category, the collection of low
voltage and start-up emissions data would also improve emissions
estimates for the U.S. GHG Inventory and better inform future EPA
policy. Currently the U.S. GHG Inventory uses a Tier 1 emission factor
to estimate LVAE emissions, based on production technology and high
voltage emission estimates, which may overestimate low voltage
emissions. However, the LVAE data is still somewhat limited. Additional
studies would help to assess how frequently measurements must be made
to maintain an accurate accounting of smelter emissions, including low
voltage emissions. Studies are also needed to assess the relative
advantages in robustness and accuracy of the non-linear method for
calculating HVAE PFC emissions. The EPA requests comment on the extent
to which low voltage emissions have been characterized and if data is
available to develop guidance on low voltage emission measurements
needed to develop robust LVAE emission factors. The EPA also requests
comment on the use of the non-linear method as an alternative to the
slope coefficient and overvoltage methods currently allowed in subpart
F. The EPA is also requesting comment on the methods and protocols in
the 2020 IAI Good Practice Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & International
Aluminium Institute. (2008). Protocol for Measurement of
Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and Hexafluoroethane
(C2F6) Emissions from Primary Aluminum
Production. Available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424).
    \165\ Available at https://international-aluminium.org/resource/good-practice-guidance-measuring-perfluorocarbons/ and in the docket
for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424).
    \166\ Available at https://international-aluminium.org/resource/good-practice-guidance-measuring-perfluorocarbons/ and in the docket
for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Schedule for the Proposed Amendments

    The EPA is planning to consider the comments on these proposed
changes, and, if any of the proposed amendments are finalized, to
respond to the comments and publish any amendments before the end of
2022. We are proposing that these amendments would become effective on
January 1, 2023 and that reporters would implement the changes
beginning with reports prepared for RY2023 and submitted April 1, 2024.
    We have determined that it would be feasible for existing reporters
to implement the proposed changes for RY2023 because the revisions
primarily include improvements to the rule that are consistent with the
current data collection and calculation methodologies. Some of the
proposed amendments would clarify and improve the existing rule in
order to enhance the quality and accuracy of the data collected. These
revisions primarily provide additional clarifications or flexibility
regarding the existing regulatory requirements, do not add new
monitoring or sampling requirements, and do not substantially affect
the information that must be collected (i.e., require new data
collection). In the limited cases where we are proposing to require the
collection of additional data, such as from subpart W (Petroleum and
Natural Gas Systems) facilities, we are proposing to allow reporters to
use BAMM for the first annual report submitted for RY2023 (as discussed
in section III.J of this preamble), which would provide additional time
for facilities to adapt to new monitoring requirements and, for
example, install the appropriate equipment. Where calculation equations
are proposed to be modified, the changes clarify equation terms or
simplify the calculations, and do not require any additional data
monitoring. In these cases, we anticipate that facilities would have
any additional inputs for calculations available in company records or
could easily calculate the required input from existing process
knowledge and engineering estimates, or from available company records.
Therefore, these types of changes are not anticipated to add
significant burden for reporters. Although we are proposing one change
to require additional reporting under subpart C (for separate reporting
of biogenic emissions from the combustion of tires), because we are
simultaneously proposing removal of the ``less than 10 percent''
restriction on using the default biogenic CO2 factor to
estimate biogenic emissions in 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv), the new
reporting would not require any additional monitoring or data
collection. As such, all reporters who combust tires would be able to
use the default biogenic CO2 factor, and would not need to
conduct quarterly flue-gas testing, to establish the biogenic fraction
of emissions.
    In several instances we are proposing to require reporting of
additional data elements to improve verification of annual reports,
provide a more complete picture of GHG emissions or supply, or develop
factors that may inform the U.S. GHG Inventory. As provided in section
III of this preamble, in these instances we anticipate that the data is
already available in company records (e.g., production or material use
data, or data on product or equipment type). In most

cases the data we are requesting can be calculated using data that is
already required to be entered into the EPA's reporting system, is
already maintained in keeping with existing facility data permits
(e.g., hours of operation an abatement device was not in use), or may
be estimated using emission factors or engineering judgment. For
example, where we are proposing to add reporting of unit specific data
for subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) reporters
using the aggregation of units or common pipe configurations,
facilities already collect data on the maximum rated heat input
capacity of individual units in each aggregation of units or common
pipe configuration (greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr) to determine
the reported cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity, and would be
able to determine the other data elements requested (i.e., unit type
and estimate of the fraction of annual heat input) from their existing
company records.
    Additionally, although we are proposing the addition of calculation
and reporting requirements under new subpart VV (Geologic Sequestration
of Carbon Dioxide with Enhanced Oil Recovery Using ISO 27916), we do
not anticipate that the new subpart would expand the existing coverage
of facilities subject to the GHGRP, but would only apply to those
reporters that currently report under subpart UU (Injection of Carbon
Dioxide) and that choose to report amounts of CO2 stored
under the proposed subpart VV. It is anticipated that these facilities
already follow the calculation requirements and data gathering
prescribed under CSA/ANSI ISO 27916:2019 (e.g., as discussed in section
III.W of this preamble, to quantify storage for the IRC section 45Q tax
credit); would not perform any additional calculation, monitoring, or
quality assurance procedures under the proposed requirements; and that
the information submitted to the GHGRP would be obtained and provided
from readily available data. These facilities will also retain the
option to continue to report under existing subpart UU with no changes.
Therefore, we have determined that it would be feasible for facilities
who opt to report under proposed subpart VV to implement the proposed
changes for RY2023.
    Other proposed changes streamline and improve implementation by
simplifying or clarifying calculation, monitoring, and recordkeeping,
or reporting. These types of changes are intended to simplify or
provide flexibility in the requirements that reporters must meet and do
not require additional data collection. For these reasons, we believe
that a proposed effective date of January 1, 2023 is reasonable.
Reporters are not required to submit RY2023 reports until April 1,
2024, which is over a year after we expect a final rule based on this
proposal to be finalized, if finalized, thus providing an opportunity
for reporters to adjust to any finalized amendments. The proposed
effective date would also allow ample time for the EPA to implement the
changes into e-GGRT.
    We are proposing one change that would impact the date of submittal
of a non-annual report. For subpart I, we are proposing to revise the
frequency of submittal of the technology assessment reports required
under 40 CFR 98.96(y). The proposed change would revise the frequency
of submittal from three years to five years. Under the current rule,
semiconductor manufacturing facilities are required to submit their
next technology assessment report by March 31, 2023 (concurrent with
their RY2022 annual report). The proposed change would affect the due
date of the following technology assessment report, moving the due date
from March 31, 2023 to March 31, 2025. Because the proposed change
would decrease the frequency of submissions and extend the timeframe
for reporters to collect and compile data for the next submittal, we
have determined that the proposed changes would be feasible to
implement by this date.
    We are likewise proposing that the proposed CBI determinations
discussed in section VI of this preamble would become effective on
January 1, 2023. The majority of the determinations are for new or
revised data elements that would be included in annual GHG reports
prepared for RY2023 and submitted April 1, 2024. However, there are
some circumstances, discussed in detail in section VI of this preamble,
where the proposed determinations cover data included in annual GHG
reports submitted for prior years. In either case, the proposed
determinations for the data that the EPA has already received for these
prior years or receives going forward for any reporting year would
become effective on January 1, 2023.

VI. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Certain Data Elements

A. Overview and Background

    Part 98 requires reporting of numerous data elements to
characterize, quantify, and verify GHG emissions and related
information. Following proposal of part 98 (74 FR 16448, April 10,
2009), the EPA received comments addressing the issue of whether
certain data could be entitled to confidential treatment. In response
to these comments, the EPA stated in the preamble to the 2009 Final
Rule (74 FR 56387, October 30, 2009), that through a notice and comment
process, we would establish those data elements that are entitled to
confidential treatment. This proposal is one of a series of rulemakings
dealing with confidentiality determinations for data reported under
part 98. For more information on previous confidentiality
determinations for part 98 data elements, see the following documents:
     75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010. Describes the data categories
and category-based determinations the EPA developed for the part 98
data elements.
     76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011; hereafter referred to as the
``2011 Final CBI Rule.'' Assigned data elements to data categories and
published the final CBI determinations for the data elements in 34 part
98 subparts, except for those data elements that were assigned to the
``Inputs to Emission Equations'' data category.
     77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012. Finalized confidentiality
determinations for data elements reported under nine subparts I, W, DD,
QQ, RR, SS, UU; except for those data elements that are inputs to
emission equations. Also finalized confidentiality determinations for
new data elements added to subparts II and TT in the November 29, 2011
Technical Corrections document (76 FR 73886).
     78 FR 68162; November 13, 2013. Finalized confidentiality
determinations for new data elements added to subpart I.
     78 FR 69337, November 29, 2013. Finalized determinations
for new and revised data elements in 15 subparts, except for those data
elements assigned to the ``Inputs to Emission Equations'' data
category.
     79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014. Revised recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for ``inputs to emission equations'' for 23
subparts and finalized confidentiality determinations for new data
elements in 11 subparts.
     79 FR 70352, November 25, 2014. Finalized confidentiality
determinations for new and substantially revised data elements in
subpart W.
     79 FR 73750, December 11, 2014. Finalized confidentiality
determinations for certain reporting requirements in subpart L.
     80 FR 64262, October 22, 2015. Finalized confidentiality
determinations for new data elements in subpart W.
     81 FR 86490, November 30, 2016. Finalized confidentiality
determinations

for new or substantially revised data elements in subpart W.
     81 FR 89188, December 9, 2016. Finalized confidentiality
determinations for new or substantially revised data elements in 18
subparts and for certain existing data elements in 4 subparts.
    In this document, we are proposing confidentiality determinations
or ``emission data'' designations for:
     New or substantially revised reporting requirements (i.e.,
the proposed change requires additional or different data to be
reported);
     Existing reporting requirements for which the EPA did not
previously finalize a confidentiality determination or ``emission
data'' designation; and
     Existing reporting requirements for which the EPA is
proposing to amend existing confidentiality determinations. This
includes cases where the EPA is proposing to amend confidentiality
determinations to align with determinations established in 40 CFR part
84 under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM
Act).
    We are also aware that a few confidentiality determinations
finalized in a previous rulemaking were not clear, and we are now
clarifying the previous determinations. Further, we propose to
designate certain new or substantially revised data elements as
``inputs to emission equations'' falling within the definition of
``emission data'' (see section VI.C of this preamble for a discussion
of ``inputs to emission equations''), and we are proposing to require
reporting of those data elements. Table 5 of this preamble provides the
number of affected data elements and the affected subparts for each of
these proposed actions.
    Table 5 of this preamble also describes the effective date of these
proposed actions. The majority of the determinations would apply at the
same time as the proposed schedule described in section V of this
preamble. In the cases where the EPA is proposing a determination for
existing data elements where one was not previously made, or where the
EPA is clarifying an existing determination, the proposed determination
would be effective on January 1, 2023 for RY2023 as well as all prior
years that the data was collected. For the data elements where we are
proposing to amend previous determinations to align with rulemakings
establishing 40 CFR part 84 under the AIM Act, the proposed
confidentiality determinations would apply only prospectively, starting
with RY2022 for the reasons described in section VI.D of this preamble.

                      Table 5--Summary of Proposed Actions Related to Data Confidentiality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proposed actions related to data      Number of data
             confidentiality                elements \a\           Subparts                 Effective year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New or substantially revised reporting               283  C, G, H, I, N, P, Q, S, W,  RY2023.
 requirements for which the EPA is                         X, Y, BB, DD, GG, HH, OO,
 proposing a confidentiality                               PP, SS, VV.
 determination or ``emission data''
 designation.
Existing reporting requirements for                   33  A, I, K, W, HH............  RY2023, and all prior
 which the EPA is proposing a                                                          years the data was
 confidentiality determination or                                                      collected.
 ``emission data'' designation because
 the EPA did not previously make a
 confidentiality determination or
 ``emission data'' designation.
Existing reporting requirements for                   33  A, RR, UU.................  RY2023.
 which the EPA is proposing to amend an
 existing confidentiality determination.
Existing reporting requirements for                   12  A, L, MM, NN..............  RY2023, and all prior
 which the EPA is clarifying the current                                               years the data was
 confidentiality determination.                                                        collected.
New or substantially revised reporting               125  C, I, W, DD, SS...........  RY2023.
 requirements that the EPA is proposing
 be designated as ``inputs to emission
 equations'' and for which the EPA is
 proposing reporting determinations.
Existing reporting requirements for                    9  OO........................  RY2022.
 which the EPA is proposing to amend an
 existing confidentiality determination
 to align with determinations under the
 AIM Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These data elements are listed in the memoranda: (1) Proposed Confidentiality Determinations and Emission
  Data Designations for Data Elements in Proposed Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, (2) Proposed
  Reporting Determinations for Data Elements Assigned to the Inputs to Emission Equations Data Category in
  Proposed Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and (3) Proposed Determinations that would Align the
  Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program with the Determinations Made under the AIM Act Regulations, available in the
  docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424).

    Finally, we are confirming that, except for the cases discussed in
detail in this proposal, part 98 data elements previously determined to
be entitled to confidential treatment through rulemaking will continue
to be treated as such under the standard for confidentiality set forth
in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356
(2019).

B. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations and Emissions Data
Designations

1. Proposed Approach
    The EPA's past approach for evaluating reporting requirements for
confidentiality was established in the 2011 Final CBI Rule (76 FR
30782, May 26, 2011). This approach was based on the requirements of 40
CFR part 2, which included an assessment of whether disclosure of the
data would cause a likelihood of substantial competitive harm. As set
forth in the 2011 Final CBI Rule, the EPA categorized all reporting
requirements into 22 data categories and reviewed them for
confidentiality as follows:
     12 data categories were established and designated as
either ``CBI'' or ``not CBI'' (hereafter referred to as ``categorical
confidentiality determinations''), and all data elements assigned to
one of these 12 data categories were also assigned the confidentiality
determination of ``CBI'' or ``not CBI'' for that category;
     5 data categories were established that were not assigned
any categorical confidentiality determinations; instead, for each data
element in these categories, the EPA made individual determinations
through rulemaking for each data element;
     4 data categories were established and designated as
``emission data'' (as defined in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)) and all data
elements assigned to these four data categories were assigned a
categorical designation of ``emission data,'' which under CAA section
114 are not entitled to confidential treatment; \167\ therefore, no
data assigned to these four categories were further evaluated for
confidentiality; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See section I.C of the preamble for the July 7, 2010 CBI
proposal (75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010) for further discussion of CAA
section 114 requirements. The term ``emission data'' is defined at
40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     1 data category, ``Inputs to Emission Equations,'' was
proposed on July 7, 2010 (75 FR 39094) to be ``emissions data.''
Evaluation of data elements assigned to this data category was first
conducted in the October 24, 2014 final rule (79 FR 63750). Refer to
section VI.C of this preamble for further discussion of the EPA's
evaluation and treatment of data assigned to the ``Inputs to Emission
Equations'' data category.
    Since the 2011 Final CBI Rule, we have followed the approach
outlined above in all rulemakings for evaluating reporting requirements
for confidentiality. However, in this document we are proposing to
revise our approach to assessing data for confidentiality in response
to Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356
(2019) (hereafter referred to as Argus Leader).\168\ In Argus Leader,
the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing the meaning of the
word ``confidential'' in Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act,
5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(4)(2012 and Supp. V. 2017) stating that
``confidential'' must be given its ``ordinary'' meaning, which is
information that is ``private'' or ``secret.'' As a result, starting
with the date of the Argus Leader ruling, the EPA no longer assesses
data elements using the rationale of whether disclosure will cause a
likelihood of substantial competitive harm when making confidentiality
determinations. Instead, the EPA assesses whether the information is
customarily and actually treated as private by the reporter and whether
the EPA has given an assurance at the time the information was
submitted that the information will be kept confidential or not
confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that the Argus Leader decision does not impact our
approach to designating data elements as ``inputs to emission
equations'' or our previous approach for designating new and revised
reporting requirements as ``emission data.'' For a discussion of the
EPA's rationale for why the Argus Leader decision does not impact our
previous approach for handling ``inputs to emission equations,'' refer
to section VI.C of this preamble. The Argus Leader decision does not
apply to data elements designated as ``emission data,'' because section
114(c) of the CAA precludes ``emission data'' from being considered
confidential and requires that such data be available to the public.
Therefore, the Argus Leader decision does not impact our previous
approach for designating new and revised reporting requirements as
``emission data.'' We propose to continue identifying new and revised
reporting elements that qualify as ``emission data'' (i.e., data
necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, or
concentration of the emission emitted by the reporting facilities) by
evaluating the data for assignment to one of the four data categories
designated by the 2011 Final CBI Rule to meet the CAA definition of
``emission data'' in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i) \169\ (hereafter referred to
as ``emission data categories''). As discussed in section II.B of the
July 7, 2010 proposal (75 FR 39100), the four emission data categories
include the following categories of data reported by direct emitters
(i.e., ``emission data'' does not apply to suppliers reporting under
the GHGRP as discussed in section II.C.2 of the preamble for the 2011
Final CBI Rule (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011)):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See section I.C of the July 7, 2010 proposal (75 FR 39100)
for a discussion of the definition of ``emission data.'' As
discussed therein, the relevant paragraphs (to the GHGRP) of the CAA
definition of ``emission data'' include 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A) and
(C), as follows: (A) ``Information necessary to determine the
identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics
(to the extent related to air quality) of any emission which has
been emitted by the source (or of any pollutant resulting from any
emission by the source), or any combination of the foregoing;'' and
(C) ``A general description of the location and/or nature of the
source to the extent necessary to identify the source and to
distinguish it from other sources (including, to the extent
necessary for such purposes, a description of the device,
installation, or operation constituting the source).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Category 1: Facility and Unit Identifier Information;
     Category 2: Emissions;
     Category 3: Calculation Methodology and Methodological
Tier; and
     Category 4: Data Elements Reported for Periods of Missing
Data that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations.
    Refer to section II.B of the July 7, 2010 proposal for descriptions
of each of these data categories and the EPA's rationale for
designating each data category as ``emission data.'' Note that the
proposed ``emission data'' designations discussed in section VI.B.2 of
this preamble involve assignment to only the first three emission data
categories in the bulleted list above (i.e., we are not proposing that
any reported elements be assigned to the ``Data Elements Reported for
Periods of Missing Data that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations''
data category).
    For reporting elements that the EPA does not designate as
``emission data'' or ``inputs to emission equations,'' the EPA is
proposing a revised approach for assessing data confidentiality. We
propose to assess each individual reporting element according to the
Argus Leader criteria (i.e., whether the information is customarily and
actually treated as private by the reporter); therefore, we are not
proposing to assign the data elements to any data category established
by the 2011 Final CBI Rule. Refer to section VI.B.2 of this preamble
for further discussion of the EPA's evaluation of data elements
according to the Argus Leader criteria and proposed confidentiality
determinations.
2. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations and ``Emission Data''
Designations
    In this section, we discuss the proposed confidentiality
determinations

and ``emission data'' designations for: (1) 283 new or substantially
revised data elements, (2) 33 existing data elements (i.e., not
proposed to be substantially revised) for which we have not previously
finalized a confidentiality determination or ``emission data''
designation, and (3) 33 existing data elements for which we are
amending an existing confidentiality determination. We are also
clarifying 12 previous confidentiality determinations, as discussed in
section VI.B.2.d of this preamble.
    Further, we are confirming that, except for the specific situations
discussed in sections VI.B.2.c and VI.D of this preamble, the data
elements previously determined to be entitled to confidential treatment
in the following rulemakings will continue to be treated as such under
the new confidentiality standard set forth in Argus Leader:
     2011 Final CBI Rule;
     77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012;
     78 FR 68162; November 13, 2013;
     78 FR 69337, November 29, 2013;
     79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014;
     79 FR 70352, November 25, 2014;
     79 FR 73750, December 11, 2014;
     80 FR 64262, October 22, 2015;
     81 FR 86490, November 30, 2016; and
     81 FR 89188, December 9, 2016.
a. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations and ``Emission Data''
Designations for New or Substantially Revised Data Reporting Elements
    For the 283 new and substantially revised data elements, the EPA is
proposing ``emission data'' designations for 90 data elements and
confidentiality determinations for 193 data elements. The EPA is
proposing to designate 90 new or substantially revised data elements as
``emission data'' by assigning the data elements to three emission data
categories (established in the 2011 Final CBI Rule as discussed in
section VI.B.1 of this preamble), as follows:
     44 data elements that are proposed to be reported under
subparts G, P, S, W, and VV are proposed to be assigned to the
``Emissions'' emission data category;
     25 data elements that are proposed to be reported under
subparts C, Q, and W are proposed to be assigned to the ``Facility and
Unit Identifier Information'' emission data category; and
     21 data elements that are proposed to be reported under
subparts I, W, and SS are proposed to be assigned to the ``Calculation
Methodology and Methodological Tier'' emission data category.
    Refer to Table 1 in the memorandum, Proposed Confidentiality
Determinations and Emission Data Designations for Data Elements in
Proposed Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424),
for a list of these 88 specific data elements proposed to be designated
as ``emission data,'' the proposed emission data category assignments
for each data element, and the EPA's rationales for the proposed
emission data category assignments.
    The remaining 193 new and substantially revised data elements not
proposed to be designated as ``emission data,'' or ``inputs to emission
equations,'' are proposed to be reported under subparts H, N, Q, S, W,
X, Y, BB, DD, GG, HH, OO, PP, SS, and VV. This proposal assesses each
individual reporting element according to the Argus Leader criteria as
discussed in section VI.B.1 of this preamble. Refer to Table 2 in the
memorandum, Proposed Confidentiality Determinations and Emission Data
Designations for Data Elements in Proposed Revisions to the Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule, to see a list of these 193 specific data elements
with this status receiving a determination, the proposed
confidentiality determination for each data element, and the EPA's
rationales for the proposed confidentiality determinations.
b. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations and ``Emission Data''
Designations for Existing Part 98 Data Reporting Elements for Which No
Determination Has Been Previously Established
    We are also proposing confidentiality determinations and ``emission
data'' designations for 33 data elements currently in subparts A, I, K,
W, and HH for which no confidentiality determination or ``emission
data'' designation has been previously finalized under part 98. We
reviewed previous rulemakings and found the following instances where a
confidentiality determination or ``emission data'' designation had not
been made:
     For subparts A, K, and HH, three data elements were added
in the 2009 Final Rule following public comment. The EPA did not make
confidentiality determinations in that rulemaking and has not finalized
determinations for these data elements in subsequent rulemakings.
     Also for subpart A, one data element was added in the
August 13, 2012 rulemaking (77 FR 48072) following public comment. The
EPA did not make a confidentiality determination in that rulemaking and
has not finalized a determination for the data element in a subsequent
rulemaking.
     For subpart I, one data element was added in the final
rulemaking published on August 13, 2012 (77 FR 48072), and one data
element was revised in the final rulemaking published on November 13,
2013 (78 FR 68162). For the data element added on August 13, 2012, the
EPA had not proposed a confidentiality determination and, therefore,
did not finalize a determination in the final rule. For the data
element revised on November 13, 2013, the EPA retained a previous
decision for the previous version of the data element not to assign a
confidentiality determination to the data element (see the final
rulemaking on August 13, 2012, 77 FR 48072). Since the EPA did not
evaluate either data element for confidentiality in those two
rulemakings or in subsequent rulemakings, the EPA has not previously
finalized a confidentiality determination for the data element.
     Also for subpart A, one data element was added in the
final rulemaking published on December 11, 2014 (79 FR 73750) following
public comment. The EPA had not proposed a confidentiality
determination or ``emission data'' designation for the data element and
therefore did not finalize confidentiality determinations in the final
rule.
     For Subpart W, 21 data elements were added or
substantially revised in the final rulemaking published on November 25,
2014 (79 FR 70352) following public comment. Additionally, 5 data
elements were added in the final rulemaking published on October 22,
2015 (80 FR 64242) following public comment. The EPA had not proposed a
confidentiality determination or ``emission data'' designation for
these new or revised data elements, and therefore did not finalize
confidentiality determinations in the final rules.
    Of these 33 data elements, we propose to designate 26 data elements
as ``emission data'' and therefore they would not be entitled to
confidential treatment by assigning the data elements to three emission
data categories (established in the 2011 Final CBI Rule as discussed in
section VI.B.1 of this preamble), as follows:
     11 data elements in subparts A and W are proposed to be
assigned to the ``Emissions'' emission data category;
     14 data elements in subparts A and W are proposed to be
assigned to the

``Facility and Unit Identifier Information'' emission data category;
and
     1 data element in subpart I is proposed to be assigned to
the ``Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier'' emission data
category.
    Refer to Table 3 in the memorandum, Proposed Confidentiality
Determinations and Emission Data Designations for Data Elements in
Proposed Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424),
for a list of these 26 specific data elements proposed to be designated
as ``emission data'', the proposed emission data category assignment
for each data element, and the EPA's rationale for the proposed
emission data category assignments.
    For the remaining 7 existing reported data elements in subparts A,
I, K, W, and HH for which no confidentiality determination or
``emission data'' designation has been previously finalized under part
98, we propose to assess each individual data element according to the
Argus Leader criteria as discussed in section VI.B.1 of this preamble.
Refer to Table 4 in the memorandum, Proposed Confidentiality
Determinations and Emission Data Designations for Data Elements in
Proposed Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424),
for a list of each of these seven specific data elements with this
status receiving a determination, the proposed confidentiality
determination for each data element, and the EPA's rationales for the
proposed confidentiality determinations.
c. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Existing Part 98 Data
Reporting Elements for Which a Previous Determination Is Proposed To Be
Amended
    We are proposing to amend the confidentiality determinations
previously finalized under part 98 for five existing data elements in
subpart A, 16 data elements in subpart RR, and 12 data elements in
subpart UU. In amending the confidentiality determinations, we propose
to evaluate each individual data element according to the Argus Leader
criteria as discussed in section VI.B.1 of this preamble. Three of
these data elements from subpart A (40 CFR 98.3(c)(5)(ii)(A) through
(C)) were added to subpart A in the December 9, 2016 rulemaking (81 FR
89188). The EPA finalized confidentiality determinations for these
three data elements in that rule. We are now proposing to amend those
finalized confidentiality determinations from ``emissions data'' to
``not CBI'' for the data reported by suppliers under subpart OO. We are
amending the previous determinations, because no data reported by
suppliers meet the definition of ``emission data'' for the purposes of
the GHGRP.\170\ Two more data elements from subpart A (40 CFR
98.3(c)(5)(ii)) for both subparts LL and MM) were added to subpart A in
the 2009 Final Rule. The EPA finalized confidentiality determinations
for the data elements in the 2011 Final CBI Rule (76 FR 30782). We are
proposing to amend the existing determinations because those
determinations did not take into account situations where the data may
already be publicly available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See section II.C.2 of the preamble for the 2011 Final CBI
Rule (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011) for further discussion of the EPA's
determination that the supplier data elements do not meet the
definition of emission data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to subparts RR and UU, we are proposing to amend the
confidentiality determinations for 16 data elements in subpart RR where
previously no categorical CBI determinations were made and for 12 data
elements in subpart UU where the EPA previously determined the data
elements to be CBI. More specifically, we are proposing to change the
confidentiality determinations for the 16 Subpart RR and 12 subpart UU
data elements to ``Not CBI'' consistent with the Argus Leader criteria.
    Subpart RR and UU reporters must report the quantities of
CO2 received at the custody transfer meter. Subpart RR
reporters must also report the quantities of CO2 produced at
the separator flow meter if they are actively producing oil or natural
gas or any other fluids. The EPA originally proposed that the
quantities of CO2 received and CO2 produced
including the mass and volumetric flow and CO2
concentrations used to calculate these values would not be CBI (77 FR
1434, January 10, 2012). Following review of public comment, however,
the EPA in its final rulemaking (77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012)
determined that the quantities of CO2 received and
CO2 produced could contain sensitive information for some
facilities that report under subparts RR and UU, thus presenting the
potential for competitive harm to the submitter if the information was
released. At the time, the EPA was not aware that this information
could be found publicly. The EPA, therefore, made categorical
determinations of ``CBI'' for the 12 subpart UU data elements and did
not make categorical determinations for the 16 subpart RR data
elements.
    We have revisited the original confidentiality determinations for
these data elements under the Argus Leader standard and have determined
that the EPA's original basis for the confidentiality determinations is
not valid. The EPA has now determined that company and facility-level
data for CO2 received and CO2 produced are often
available to the public through company websites and annual reports,
company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
presentations at conferences and other events, and third-party
analyses. In addition, oil and gas production to the well level is
reported to state oil and gas commissions and is widely available to
the public through the commission websites and records as well as
through third parties. General rules-of-thumb for the quantity of
CO2 required to produce a barrel of oil are often used in
the oil and gas industry to estimate CO2 quantities received
and injected. Since the EPA has now found that this information is
largely publicly available, we are determining in the proposed rule
that the quantities of CO2 received and CO2
produced submitted under subparts RR and UU cannot be entitled to
confidential treatment under the standard set forth by the Argus Leader
decision.
    Refer to Table 5 in the memorandum, Proposed Confidentiality
Determinations and Emission Data Designations for Data Elements in
Proposed Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424)
for a list of each of the 33 data elements with this status receiving a
determination, the proposed confidentiality determination for each data
element, and the Agency's rationale for each proposed determination.
d. Clarification of Previous Confidentiality Determinations
    We are clarifying the confidentiality determinations previously
finalized under 40 CFR part 98 for 12 data elements currently in
subparts A, LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels), MM (Suppliers of
Petroleum Productions), and NN. These 12 data elements were added in
the 2009 Final Rule, and confidentiality determinations were finalized
in the 2011 Final CBI Rule (76 FR 30782). For these 12 data elements,
there were discrepancies regarding the finalized confidentiality
determinations in the 2011 Final CBI Rule (76 FR 30782) between the
confidentiality determination specified in the preamble to the final
rule and the

confidentiality determination specified in the April 29, 2011
memorandum to the rulemaking.\171\ We are clarifying which explanation
of the Agency's confidentiality determination for each of the 12 data
elements was correct, and we are providing explanations for the
discrepancies between the determination specified in the preamble to
the final rule and the supporting memorandum. These clarifications do
not change the EPA's treatment of these 12 data elements; the
confidentiality determinations being clarified are consistent with how
the EPA has treated these reported data since promulgation of the May
26, 2011 final rule. This clarification will be effective for all
previous and future reporting years. However, due to the conflict in
the previous rules, we are providing a new opportunity to comment on
the Agency's treatment of these data. Refer to Table 6 in the
memorandum, Proposed Confidentiality Determinations and Emission Data
Designations for Data Elements in Proposed Revisions to the Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule, available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424), for a list of the 12 data elements with
this status, the clarified confidentiality determinations for each data
element, and an explanation of the discrepancy in the documentation of
their confidentiality determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See April 29, 2011 memorandum ``Final Data Category
Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Part 98 Reporting
Elements,'' available in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Reporting Determinations for Inputs to Emission Equations

    As discussed in section I.C of the preamble to the October 24, 2014
rule (79 FR 63750), the EPA organizes data assigned to the ``Inputs to
Emission Equations'' data category into two subcategories. The first
subcategory includes ``inputs to emission equations'' entered into e-
GGRT's Inputs Verification Tool (IVT). These ``inputs to emission
equations'' are entered into IVT to satisfy the EPA's verification
requirements. These data must be maintained as records by the
submitter, but the data are not included in the annual report that is
submitted to the EPA. This is done in circumstances where the EPA has
determined that the ``inputs to emission equations'' meet the criteria
necessary for them to be entered into the IVT system. The second
subcategory includes ``inputs to emission equations'' that must be
included in the annual report submitted to the EPA. This is done in
circumstances where the EPA has determined that the data elements
assigned to the ``Inputs to Emission Equations'' category do not meet
the criteria necessary for them to be entered into the IVT system.
These ``inputs to emission equations,'' once received by the EPA, are
not held as confidential.
    As stated in section VI.B.1 of this preamble, the EPA is
determining that the Argus Leader decision does not impact our approach
for handling of data elements assigned to the ``Inputs to Emission
Equations'' data category. Data assigned to this data category and
subcategorized by the Agency as ``inputs to emission equations''
entered into IVT do not become federal records for the purposes of part
98 reporting, so no confidentiality determination needs to be made for
data elements determined to fall within this subcategory of data. Since
this subcategory of data is only entered into the IVT system and not in
the annual report sent directly to the EPA, the Argus Leader decision
does not affect the approach to these data or the criteria the Agency
uses to determine whether these data should be considered to fall
within this subcategory. Likewise, for the same reason, the Argus
Leader decision does not impact actions in previous rulemakings
designating certain data as ``inputs to emission equations'' to be
entered into the IVT system.
    In continuation of this past approach, we are proposing to assign
125 new or substantially revised data elements in subparts I, W, DD,
and SS to the ``Inputs to Emission Equations'' data category. Based on
our evaluation of each data element assigned to the ``Inputs to
Emission Equations'' data category, we determined that none of these
125 evaluated data meet the criteria necessary for them to be entered
into the IVT system; therefore, we propose that all 125 of these data
elements be reported to the EPA and would be considered ``emission
data.'' These ``inputs to emission equations'' once received by the EPA
would not qualify to be held as confidential. Refer to Table 1 in the
memorandum, Proposed Reporting Determinations for Data Elements
Assigned to the Inputs to Emission Equations Data Category in Proposed
Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, available in the docket
for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424) for a list of
the 125 data elements proposed to be reported that are being designated
as ``inputs to emission equations,'' and the EPA's rationale for the
proposed reporting determinations. The table also includes a discussion
of the criteria that we established in 2011 for evaluating whether data
assigned to the ``Inputs to Emission Equations'' data category should
be entered into the IVT system. In our evaluation we found that even if
the 2011 criteria were based on the standard for confidential treatment
set forth in the Supreme Court's 2019 Argus Leader decision, it would
not impact our determination that these 125 data elements should be
directly reported to EPA instead of entered into IVT.
    Note that this proposal also includes proposed revisions to
calculation methodologies in direct emitter subparts G, P, S, and Y
that would require reporters under these subparts to enter new or
substantially revised ``inputs to emission equations'' in IVT. These
new and substantially revised data elements are not proposed to be
included in the reporting section of those subparts but would instead
be retained as records. Since the EPA is not proposing to include these
data in the annual report, the data elements are not included in the
evaluation discussed in this section. Refer to section III of this
preamble for discussion of all proposed revisions to the recordkeeping
sections of subparts G, P, S, and Y.

D. Proposed Revision to Confidentiality Determinations for Existing 40
CFR Part 98 Data Elements Affected by the AIM Implementation Rule

    On October 5, 2021, the EPA finalized the AIM Implementation Rule
(86 FR 55116), which establishes a program to phase down
hydrofluorocarbon production and consumption (hereafter referred to as
the ``AIM Act'') at 40 CFR part 84 (hereafter referred to as ``Part
84''). There are cases where similar or identical data will be
collected under both the AIM Act under Part 84 and the GHGRP under part
98. For some of these overlapping data, the EPA had previously
determined under part 98 that the data would be treated as confidential
when collected under the GHGRP. However, pursuant to the AIM Act, the
EPA subsequently determined that the overlapping data elements
collected under the AIM Act would not be provided confidential
treatment. Refer to section X.C of the AIM Implementation Rule for the
Agency's rationale for these determinations (86 FR 55191).
Specifically, the AIM Implementation Rule determined that 12 data
elements would not be eligible for confidential treatment when reported
under the AIM Act where the data had previously been determined to be
entitled to confidential treatment under the GHGRP.
    To align the GHGRP with the AIM Act, we are proposing to amend the
confidentiality determinations made

under the GHGRP for these 12 overlapping data elements. As these 12
data elements are not eligible for confidential treatment and will be
publicly released under the AIM Act, there is no basis for treating the
data as confidential under the GHGRP. Therefore, we are proposing that
the data no longer be entitled to confidential treatment when reported
under the GHGRP. We are proposing to amend the confidentiality
determinations for these 12 overlapping data elements for only those
reporting years that the data are collected under the AIM Act and only
those GHGs covered by the AIM Act. First, regarding the reporting
years, the EPA has been collecting many of these 12 data elements under
the GHGRP since 2010, whereas the EPA will only begin collecting data
under the AIM Act for activities beginning in 2022. Therefore, we are
not proposing to amend the confidentiality determinations for any years
prior to 2022 that the data were collected under the GHGRP. Instead, we
propose to amend the part 98 confidentiality determinations
prospectively, such that these 12 data elements would not be treated as
confidential for the annual reports covering RY2022 and future years.
Second, regarding GHGs, the AIM Act requires reporting of 18 GHGs,
whereas the GHGRP covers a much broader set of GHGs. We are proposing
to amend the part 98 confidentiality determinations for these 12 data
elements only for reported data associated with the exact GHGs covered
under the AIM Act as listed in appendix A of part 84.
    The 12 overlapping data elements for which we are proposing to
amend the confidentiality determination include data elements currently
reported under subparts A and OO of part 98. A list of these 12
affected data elements and the proposed determinations are specifically
listed in Table 1 in the memorandum titled Proposed Determinations that
would Align the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program with the
Determinations Made under the AIM Act Regulations available in the
docket for this rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
    The AIM Implementation Rule also included one HFC data element to
be used in the administration of the AIM Act that is only reported
under part 98 but not under the AIM Act, specifically under 40 CFR
98.416(a). This data element is ``Annual quantities of fluorinated
greenhouse gases [other than HFCs regulated under the AIM Act],
identified by type, intentionally produced on a facility line that also
produces HFC[hyphen]23.'' \172\ The Agency will invoke the modification
provisions of 40 CFR 2.301(d)(4) to make an individual determination on
this specific data element. Once that process is completed, the Agency
may make a conforming change to the confidentiality determination for
that data category in the final version of this rulemaking. Note that
the determination affects only fluorinated greenhouse gases that are
produced on a facility line that also produces HFC-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See pg. 12 of ``Memorandum--Classification of Data
Reported Under the HFC Phasedown Rule'' available at Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0044-0227 and in the docket to for this rulemaking,
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Request for Comments on Proposed Category Assignments,
Confidentiality Determinations, or Reporting Determinations

    By proposing confidentiality determinations prior to data reporting
through this proposal and rulemaking process, we provide potential
reporters an opportunity to submit comments, particularly comments
identifying data elements proposed by the Agency to be ``not CBI'' that
reporters consider to be customarily and actually treated as private.
Likewise, we provide potential reporters an opportunity to submit
comments on whether there are disclosure concerns for ``inputs to
emission equations'' that we propose would be included in the annual
reports and subsequently released by the EPA. This opportunity to
submit comments is intended to provide reporters with the opportunity
that is afforded to reporters when the EPA considers claims for
confidential treatment of information in case-by-case confidentiality
determinations under 40 CFR part 2. In addition, the comment period
provides an opportunity to respond to the EPA's proposed determinations
with more information for the Agency to consider prior to finalization.
We will evaluate the comments on our proposed determinations, including
claims of confidentiality and information substantiating such claims,
before finalizing the confidentiality determinations. Please note that
this will be reporters' only opportunity to substantiate a
confidentiality claim for data elements included in this rulemaking
where a confidentiality determination or reporting determination is
being proposed. Upon finalizing the confidentiality determinations and
reporting determinations of the data elements identified in this
proposed rule, the EPA will release or withhold these data in
accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(d), which contains special provisions
governing the treatment of part 98 data for which confidentiality
determinations have been made through rulemaking pursuant to CAA
sections 114 and 307(d).
    If members of the public have reason to believe any data elements
in this proposed rule that are proposed to be treated as confidential
are not customarily and actually treated as private by reporters,
please provide comment explaining why the Agency should not provide an
assurance of confidential treatment for data.
    When submitting comments regarding the confidentiality
determinations or reporting determinations we are proposing in this
action, please identify each individual proposed new, revised, or
existing data element you consider to be confidential or do not
consider to be ``emission data'' in your comments. If the data element
has been designated as ``emission data,'' please explain why you do not
believe the information should be considered ``emission data'' as
defined in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). If the data has not been designated
as ``emission data'' and is proposed to be not entitled to confidential
treatment, please explain specifically how the data element is
commercial or financial information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private. Particularly describe the measures
currently taken to keep the data confidential and how that information
has been customarily treated by your company and/or business sector in
the past. This explanation is based on the requirements for
confidential treatment set forth in Argus Leader. If the data element
has been designated as an ``input to an emission equation'' (i.e., not
entitled to confidential treatment), please explain specifically why
there are disclosure concerns.
    Please also discuss how this data element may be different from or
similar to data that are already publicly available, including data
already collected and published annually by the GHGRP, as applicable.
Please submit information identifying any publicly available sources of
information containing the specific data elements in question. Data
that are already available through other sources would likely be found
not to qualify for confidential treatment. In your comments, please
identify the manner and location in which each specific data element
you identify is publicly available, including a citation. If the data
are physically published, such as in a book, industry trade
publication, or federal agency publication, provide the title, volume
number (if applicable), author(s),

publisher, publication date, and International Standard Book Number
(ISBN) or other identifier. For data published on a website, provide
the address of the website, the date you last visited the website and
identify the website publisher and content author. Please avoid
conclusory and unsubstantiated statements, or general assertions
regarding the confidential nature of the information.
    Finally, we are not proposing new confidentiality determinations
and reporting determinations for data reporting elements proposed to be
unchanged or minimally revised because the final confidentiality
determinations and reporting determinations that the EPA made in
previous rules for these unchanged or minimally revised data elements
are unaffected by this proposed amendment and will continue to apply.
The minimally revised data elements are those where we are proposing
revisions that would not require additional or different data to be
reported. For example, under subpart FF, we are proposing to revise a
data element to clarify the term ``Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) number'' to be ``Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) identification number'' (see 40 CFR 98.246(t)).
This proposed change would not impact the data collected, and therefore
we are not proposing a new or revised confidentiality determination.
However, we are soliciting comment on any cases where a minor revision
would impact the previous confidentiality determination or reporting
determination. In your comments, please identify the specific data
element, including name and citation, and explain why the minor
revision would impact the previous confidentiality determination or
reporting determination.

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

    The EPA is proposing amendments to part 98 in order to implement
improvements to the GHGRP, including revisions to update existing
emission factors and emissions estimation methodologies, revisions to
require reporting of additional data to understand new source
categories or new emission sources for specific sectors and address
potential gaps in reporting, and revisions to collect data that would
improve the EPA's understanding of the sector-specific processes or
other factors that influence GHG emission rates, verification of
collected data, or to complement or inform other EPA programs. The EPA
is also proposing revisions that would improve implementation of the
program, such as those that would update applicability estimation
methodologies, provide flexibility for or simplifying calculation and
monitoring methodologies, streamline recordkeeping and reporting, and
other minor technical corrections or clarifications identified as a
result of working with the affected sources during rule implementation
and outreach. The EPA anticipates that the proposed revisions would
result in an overall increase in burden for reporters. The proposed
revisions would increase burden in cases where the proposed amendments
add or revise reporting requirements or require additional emissions
data to be reported. We anticipate a decrease in burden where the
proposed revisions would adjust or improve the estimation methodologies
for determining applicability, simplify calculation methodologies or
monitoring requirements, or simplify the data that must be reported. In
several cases, we are proposing changes where we anticipate increased
clarity or more flexibility for reporters that could result in a
potential decrease in burden, but we are unable to quantify this
decrease.
    As discussed in section V of this preamble, we are proposing to
implement these changes for RY2023 reports. Costs have been estimated
over the three years following the year of implementation. The
incremental implementation costs for all subparts for each reporting
year are summarized in Table 6 of this preamble. The estimated annual
average labor burden is $1,417,494 per year. The incremental burden by
subpart is shown in Table 6 of this preamble.

                      Table 6--Total Incremental Labor Burden for Reporting Years 2023-2025
                                                  [$2017/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Cost summary                        RY2023          RY2024          RY2025      Annual average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden by Year (all subparts)...................      $1,417,591      $1,416,802      $1,418,090      $1,417,494
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is an additional annual incremental burden of $7,281 for
capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, which reflects
changes to applicability and monitoring for subparts I, P, W, UU, and
VV. Including capital and O&M costs, the total annual average burden is
$1,424,775 over the next 3 years.
    The incremental burden by subpart is shown in Table 7 of this
preamble. Note that subparts with proposed revisions that would not
result in any changes to burden (e.g., subparts FF and NN) are excluded
from this table.

                                  Table 7--Total Incremental Burden by Subpart
                                                [$2017/year] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Labor costs
                                                                 --------------------------------   Capital and
                             Subpart                                                Subsequent          O&M
                                                                   Initial year        years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C--General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
Facilities Reporting only to Subpart C..........................         $70,732         $70,732
Facilities Reporting to Subpart C plus another subpart..........          94,999          94,999
G--Ammonia Manufacturing........................................             250             250
H--Cement Production............................................           3,655           3,655
I--Electronics Manufacturing \b\................................          19,056          17,839             $50

N--Glass Production.............................................             818             818
P--Hydrogen Production..........................................             628             628         (1,536)
Q--Iron and Steel Production....................................           1,454           1,454
S--Lime Manufacturing...........................................           1,351           1,351
W--Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems............................       1,211,076       1,211,076           8,667
X--Petrochemical Production.....................................             528             528
Y--Petroleum Refineries.........................................             801             801
BB--Silicon Carbide Production..................................              20              20
DD--Electrical Equipment Use....................................           7,106           7,106
GG--Zinc Production.............................................              20              20
HH--Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.............................           3,297           3,297
OO--Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases....................             810             810
PP--Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide.................................             629             629
SS--Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment...........             338             338
UU \c\..........................................................         (1,831)         (1,831)           (100)
VV \d\..........................................................           1,833           3,355             200
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total \e\...................................................       1,417,591       1,417,446           7,281
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes estimated increase or decrease in costs following implementation of revisions in RY2023.
\b\ Average subsequent year labor costs for Subpart I. Subpart I subsequent year costs include $17,252 in Year 2
  and $17,526 in Year 3.
\c\ Annual burden includes labor costs and annual O&M savings for two reporters who will begin submitting
  reports under proposed subpart VV in each year.
\d\ Subsequent year labor costs include $2,848 in Year 2 and $3,862 in Year 3. O&M costs are based on $100 in
  Year 1, $200 in Year 2, and $300 in Year 3.
\e\ Subsequent year labor costs include $1,416,802 in Year 2 and $1,418,090 in Year 3.

    A full discussion of the cost and emission impacts may be found in
the memorandum, Assessment of Burden Impacts for Proposed Revisions for
the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule available in the docket for this
rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the OMB for review. This action involves proposed amendments that
raise novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this rulemaking,
Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2300.19. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424, and it is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA does not anticipate that the proposed amendments would
result in substantial burden, based on the changes to the reporting
requirements, in any of the subparts for which amendments are being
proposed. In many cases, the proposed amendments to the requirements
would reduce the reporting burden by clarifying or improving the
estimation methodologies for determining applicability, simplifying
calculation methodologies or providing flexibility for monitoring
requirements, or simplifying the data that must be reported. The
estimated annual average burden is 16,366 hours and $1,424,775 over the
3 years covered by this information collection. The burden costs
include $1,424,772 from revisions implemented in the first year,
$1,424,082 from revisions implemented in the second year, and
$1,425,471 from revisions implemented in the third year. Further
information on the EPA's assessment on the impact on burden can be
found in the memorandum, Assessment of Burden Impacts for Proposed
Revisions for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in the docket for this
rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0424.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of facilities
that must report their GHG emissions and other data to the EPA to
comply with 40 CFR part 98.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: The respondent's obligation to
respond is mandatory under the authority provided in CAA section 114.
    Estimated number of respondents: 10,041 (affected by proposed
amendments).
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: 16,366 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,424,775, includes $7,281 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this
particular information

collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive comments
no later than August 22, 2022.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this proposed action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are
small businesses across all sectors encompassed by the rule, small
governmental jurisdictions and small non-profits. In the development of
40 CFR part 98, the EPA determined that some small businesses are
affected because their production processes emit GHGs that must be
reported, because they have stationary combustion units on site that
emit GHGs that must be reported, or because they have fuel supplier
operations for which supply quantities and GHG data must be reported.
Small governments and small non-profits are generally affected because
they have regulated landfills or stationary combustion units on site,
or because they own an LDC. In the promulgation of the rule, the EPA
took several steps to reduce the impact on small entities. For example,
the EPA determined appropriate thresholds that reduced the number of
small businesses reporting. In addition, the EPA conducted several
meetings with industry associations to discuss regulatory options and
the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and
reporting. Except as discussed below, the proposed revisions would not
revise these thresholds for existing subparts, therefore, we do not
expect any additional small entities will be impacted under the
proposed rule revisions. The proposed rule amendments predominantly
apply to existing reporters and are amendments that would improve the
existing emissions estimation methodologies; implement requirements to
collect additional data to understand new source categories or
emissions sources; improve the EPA's understanding of the sector-
specific processes or other factors that influence GHG emission rates
and improve verification of collected data; and provide additional data
to complement or inform other EPA programs under the CAA and to more
broadly inform climate programs and policies. We are also proposing
revisions that clarify or update provisions that have been unclear, or
that streamline or simplify requirements, for example, by increasing
flexibility for reporters or removing redundant requirements. In
general, these changes are improvements or clarifications of
requirements that do not require new data monitoring and would not
significantly increase reporter burden, or are changes that require
data that is readily available and may be obtained from company records
or estimated from existing inputs or data elements already collected
under part 98.
    In evaluating the impacts of the proposed revisions, we assessed
the costs and impacts to small entities in three areas, including
revisions to subpart applicability, changes to existing monitoring or
calculation methodologies, and revisions to reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for data provided to the program. First, we evaluated the
costs to entities who may be affected by changes to applicability. In
general, this is the area that would be most likely to have greater
impacts, as facilities assume substantially higher cost when they
become newly applicable to the full set of requirements under part 98
versus the costs associated with an incremental change in an existing
requirement. Only the proposed revisions to applicability to subpart I
(discussed in section III.E.2 of this preamble) are anticipated to
potentially impact new reporters that have not previously reported to
the GHGRP. The SBA size standard for facilities falling under the NAICS
code 334413 (Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing) is 1,250
employees. In the subpart I initial promulgation package, we originally
assessed the impact of complying with subpart I requirements on all
small entities by calculating a cost-to-sales ratio for six enterprise
size ranges using the average total annualized reporting costs to the
average annual sales receipts for each establishment (85 FR 74813,
December 1, 2010). Based on this analysis, the cost-to-sales ratio for
all entity sizes except for the smallest sized enterprises (1 to 20
employee range) was less than one percent. The EPA further concluded
that although the cost-to-sales ratio for the 1 to 20 employee range
for semiconductor and related device manufacturing was greater than one
percent (i.e., 1.16 percent); facilities with emissions greater than
25,000 mtCO2e per year are unlikely to be included in the 1
to 20 employees size category. Under this proposed action, we estimate
there is one (1) affected facility that does not currently report under
the GHGRP that may be required to report. The affected facility is
included in the 100 to 499 employee range. Although the affected
facility meets the SBA size standard for a small business and would
potentially incur costs from becoming newly subject the GHGRP ($18,736
in the first year and $17,032 in subsequent years), the costs-to-sales
ratio for a facility in this size range would be anticipated to be less
than 0.10%. Therefore, we have determined there would not be a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
from the proposed revisions to subpart I.
    Next, we evaluated the costs and impacts to small entities
associated with revisions to monitoring and calculation methodologies
to each subpart. For those subparts where the EPA is proposing
revisions to update or streamline monitoring and calculation
methodologies (i.e., subparts C, G, I, P, and S), we estimate no change
or a decrease in burden; therefore, there would be no significant
economic impacts on small entities from these proposed revisions. For a
subset of subpart W reporters, the proposed monitoring revisions would
result in a modest increase in labor costs of $430 per affected
reporter, and $12 operation and maintenance costs per reporter.
Detailed small business analyses were performed for subpart W in the
initial promulgation package from 2011 (75 FR 74458, November 30, 2010)
for the eight original industry segments and in the 2015 amendments to
subpart W for three additional industry segments (80 FR 64262, October
22, 2015). Both analyses stated that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
because we concluded that small businesses are unlikely be
impacted.\173\ Furthermore, because the costs associated with the
proposed monitoring revisions are minimal, no significant small entity
impacts are anticipated for facilities subject to the proposed subpart
W amendments. Because the EPA does not foresee an increase in the
number of reporters or any changes in the affected industry

segments from the proposed revisions, we have determined that the
previous small business analyses still apply and there will not be a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
from the proposed revisions to monitoring for subpart W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ The original analyses, in section III.D of the 2011
package (75 FR 74458, November 30, 2010), stated, ``smaller
enterprises have very small operations (such as a single family
owning a few production wells) that are unlikely to cross the 25,000
metric tons CO2e reporting threshold.'' The second
analysis, in section IV.B of the preamble to the 2015 proposed
amendments (79 FR 76267; December 9, 2014), stated, ``The petroleum
and natural gas industry has a large number of enterprises, the
majority of them in the 1-20 employee range. However, a large