[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19645-19649]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07090]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0428; FRL-9374-02-R4]

Finding of Failure To Attain the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standard;
Tennessee; Sullivan County Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
finalizing the determination that the Sullivan County, Tennessee,
sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area (hereinafter
referred to as ``the Sullivan County Area'' or ``Area'') failed to
attain the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) by the applicable attainment date
of October 4, 2018, based upon a weight of evidence analysis of
available quality-assured and certified SO2 ambient air
monitoring data and SO2 emissions data from January 2015
through December 2017. As a result of this determination, the State of
Tennessee is required to submit by April 5, 2023, revisions to the
Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) that, among other things,
provide for the attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the Sullivan
County Area as expeditiously as practicable but no later than April 5,
2027.

DATES: This rule is effective May 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0428. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Adams can be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 13, 2022 (87 FR 2095), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to find that the Sullivan County
Area failed to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS \1\
by the applicable attainment

date of October 4, 2018, based upon a weight of evidence analysis of
available quality-assured and certified SO2 ambient air
monitoring data and SO2 emissions data from January 2015
through December 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air
quality management through the establishment and implementation of
the NAAQS. On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2
NAAQS, establishing a new 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts
per billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). After the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required to designate
all areas of the country pursuant to section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the
CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA designated the Sullivan County Area as nonattainment on August
5, 2013,\2\ based on air quality monitoring data from an SO2
monitor operating at the time of designation (Air Quality System (AQS)
Site ID: 47-163-0007). The Sullivan County Area is comprised of a 3-
kilometer (km) radius circle centered around the B-253 powerhouse at
the Eastman Chemical Company facility in Kingsport, Tennessee
(Eastman), which encompasses this SO2 monitor that was
operating at the time of designation.\3\ EPA's first round of
designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the Sullivan
County Area, became effective on October 4, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On August 5, 2013, EPA finalized its first round (round 1)
of designations for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS.
Specifically, in the 2013 action, EPA designated 29 areas in 16
states as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including
a portion of Sullivan County.
    \3\ For exact descriptions of the Sullivan County Area, refer to
40 CFR 81.343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 192(a), the attainment date for the Area
was no later than October 4, 2018, which is five years after the
effective date of the final action designating the Sullivan County Area
as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Under section
179(c) of the CAA, within six months of the attainment date, EPA is
required to make a determination, based on the area's air quality as of
the attainment date, whether an area attained by that date. If EPA
determines that an area failed to attain by the attainment date, EPA is
required to publish that determination in the Federal Register. See CAA
section 179(c)(2).
    On June 25, 2021, EPA entered into a consent decree with the Center
for Biological Diversity in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.\4\ The consent decree requires EPA to finalize
by March 31, 2022, a determination whether the Sullivan County Area
attained the 1-hour SO2 standard by the October 4, 2018,
attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Consent Decree entered June 25, 2021, (Docket ID: EPA-
R04-OAR-2021-0428), Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. EPA,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05436-EMC (N.D. Cal.) which is included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the January 13, 2022, NPRM, EPA evaluated whether the Sullivan
County Area attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the October 4,
2018, attainment date. For an area to attain the 2010 SO2
NAAQS by the October 4, 2018, attainment date, the design value based
upon monitored air quality data from 2015-2017 at each eligible
monitoring site must be equal to or less than 75 ppb for the 1-hour
standard. EPA developed a weight of evidence assessment based on
available quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data,
and source-specific SO2 emissions in the Area from January
2015 through December 2017 to support the proposed determination that
the Sullivan County Area did not attain the 1-hour SO2
standard by October 4, 2018.
    Air monitoring data in the Sullivan County Area from January 1,
2015, to July 20, 2016, did not meet the quality assurance requirements
in 40 CFR part 58 Appendix A and, therefore, were not comparable to the
NAAQS. Consequently, a valid 2015-2017 design value could not be
determined for the Area. In lieu of a 2015-2017, 3-year design value,
EPA reviewed the available quality-assured ambient monitoring data from
July 20, 2016, to December 31, 2017, and annual and hourly
SO2 emissions data at Eastman from January 1, 2015, to
December 31, 2017, to determine the air quality in the Sullivan County
Area as of the applicable attainment date. The available annual 99th
percentile daily maximum 1-hour average SO2 data at each
state and local air monitoring station (SLAMS) site \5\ within the
Sullivan County Area for the 2015-2017 period are presented in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See EPA's January 13, 2022, NPRM for additional details
regarding the Ross N. Robinson and Skyland Drive SLAMS sites. See 87
FR 2095.

                       Table 1--2015-2017 SO2 Monitoring Data for the Sullivan County Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
                                                  average (ppb)
         Site (AQS ID)          ------------------------------------------------       Design Value valid?
                                      2015            2016            2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross N. Robinson (47-163-6001).         \a\ N/A         \b\ 152              92  No.
Skyland Dr. (47-163-6002)......         \a\ N/A          \b\ 91              78  No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The SLAMS monitors did not collect data in 2015.
\b\ The Ross N. Robinson monitor had only two quarters of complete data in 2016 due to the monitor beginning
  operation on July 21, 2016. The Skyland Drive monitor had only one quarter of complete data in 2016 due to the
  monitor beginning operation on September 1, 2016.
Source: EPA AQS Design Value Report, retrieved September 14, 2021.

    The data in Table 1 indicates that although the two sites in the
Sullivan County Area did not have complete data in 2015 and 2016 to
determine a 3-year design value, both monitors consistently measured
99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations
above the 75 ppb level of the 1-hour NAAQS in 2016 and 2017, after
beginning operation in mid-2016. Both monitors have complete 2017
datasets.
    The primary SO2 emissions sources in the Area are the
coal-fired boilers at Eastman. EPA observed that the annual
SO2 emissions and the hourly SO2 emissions from
the Eastman boilers were significantly higher from January 1, 2015, to
June 30, 2016, when air monitoring data are not available, than from
July 1, 2016, through December 31, 2017, when air monitoring data are
available. Considering that the ambient measured concentrations
exceeded the level of the NAAQS in 2016 and 2017, when emissions from
the primary sources of SO2 were lower than they were in
2015, EPA believes it is reasonable to expect that the 99th percentile
maximum daily 1-hour SO2 concentration in 2015 likely also
exceeded the level of 75 ppb. Consequently, the three-year average of
the 99th percentile value for 2015 (likely exceeded the level of the
NAAQS), 2016 (exceeded the level of the NAAQS), and 2017 (exceeded the
level of the NAAQS) almost certainly would have resulted in a design
value that violated the NAAQS. Thus, EPA

finds that this analysis of available quality-assured and certified
ambient concentration data and SO2 emissions data
demonstrates by a weight of evidence that the Sullivan County Area
failed to attain the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by the required
attainment date of October 4, 2018.
    EPA's January 13, 2022, NPRM provided detailed assessments of the
SO2 monitoring network and emissions data for the primary
SO2-emitting sources in the Area at Eastman. The NPRM also
provided additional background information on the promulgation of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, as well as the designation of the Sullivan
County Area under the CAA, and EPA's obligation under CAA section
179(c)(1) to determine if an area attained by the statutory attainment
date. Lastly, the January 13, 2022, NPRM discussed the consequences for
SO2 nonattainment areas that failed to attain the 1-hour
SO2 standard by the October 4, 2018, attainment date.
Comments on the January 13, 2022, NPRM were due on or before February
14, 2022.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two comments on the January 13, 2022, NPRM, which are
included in the docket for this action. The comments do not object to
the proposed conclusion that the Sullivan County Area failed to timely
attain the NAAQS and are generally in favor of the proposed finding set
forth in the January 13, 2022, proposed rulemaking. EPA summarizes and
responds to the comments below.
    Comment 1: The commenter discusses the findings that EPA outlined
in the January 13, 2022, NPRM and generally agrees that a ``SIP is
needed to more closely monitor Sullivan County and hold them
accountable to following the emission standards.'' The commenter notes
that EPA cites to CAA section 179(d) for the consequences for the
failure to meet the SO2 standard. In addition, the commenter
expresses concern that the required SIP ``simply passes on
responsibility to the State'' and will not address the problem quickly
and suggests EPA ``handle the situation.'' The commenter believes EPA
has jurisdiction due to the nature of the SO2 emissions
impacting multiple states and that fines should be imposed on the
responsible organizations.
    Response 1: The commenter does not disagree with EPA's proposed
determination that the Sullivan County, Tennessee SO2
nonattainment area did not attain the 1-hour standard by the October 4,
2018, statutory attainment date. The commenter also supports the
requirement for Tennessee to submit a SIP one year after EPA's finding
that will provide attainment of the SO2 standard in the
nonattainment area by a new statutory attainment date pursuant to the
requirements established at 179(d) of the CAA.
    The commenter, however, expresses concern with relying on the State
to address the problem, and suggests it would be ideal for EPA to
handle the situation. The commenter asserts that EPA should levy fines
and should have jurisdiction because of the nature of SO2
emissions impacting multiple states. As acknowledged by the commenter,
EPA is taking this action pursuant to CAA section 179, which specifies
the consequences of EPA's determination that the Area did not attain
the air quality standard by the applicable attainment date.
Specifically, Section 179(d) requires each state with a nonattainment
area that fails to attain the standard by the applicable attainment
date to submit a SIP revision meeting the requirements of CAA sections
110 and 172 within one year after EPA publishes notice of its
determination. Section 172 requires the revision to include, among
other elements, a demonstration of attainment (within the period
prescribed by CAA section 179(d)), reasonable further progress, and
contingency measures. In addition, under CAA section 179(d)(2), the SIP
revision must include such additional measures as EPA may reasonably
prescribe, including all measures that can be feasibly implemented in
the area in light of technological achievability, costs, and any non-
air quality and other air quality-related health and environmental
impacts.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ At this time, EPA is not prescribing any additional measures
for the Sullivan County Area under CAA section 179(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relevance of the commenter's statements that EPA should have
jurisdiction because of the nature of SO2 emissions
impacting multiple states, and that fines should be imposed on the
responsible organizations, is unclear. The source-specific nature of
the SO2 standard is not relevant to EPA's obligations
prescribed under the Act to ensure states comply with CAA planning
requirements within the statutory timeframes. EPA appreciates the
commenter's concern and believes the CAA clearly establishes the
State's and EPA's respective responsibilities to ensure nonattainment
areas demonstrate expeditious attainment of the standards within the
period prescribed by CAA section 179(d). Regarding SO2
emissions impacting multiple states, separate CAA provisions in section
110(a)(2)(D) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit
source emission activity that could impact another state's ability to
attain or maintain the SO2 standard.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require each state to
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. This includes CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D), which requires SIPs to (i) contain adequate
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions
activity within a state from emitting any air pollutants in amounts
which will (I) contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state, or (II)
interfere with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility. EPA has
considered or will consider the adequacy of Tennessee's SIP for
these interstate provisions separately. EPA approved the interstate
provisions of Tennessee's SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) on November 28, 2016, and September 24, 2018
(see 81 FR 85410 and 83 FR 48237, respectively), and intends to act
on the section110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport SIP provisions
separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter expresses concern about the proposed rule
only addressing the SO2 NAAQS in Sullivan County, Tennessee,
and notes the importance of the proposed rule in maintaining the safety
of the people. The commenter also brings up negative impacts from
SO2 on human health and the environment and states that
``that this is an important issue that I hope gets passed.''
    Response 2: The commenter does not object to EPA's proposed
determination that the Sullivan County Area failed to timely attain the
NAAQS. EPA appreciates the commenter's acknowledgement of the health
and environmental impacts from SO2 pollution. Regarding the
commenter's impression that the rule is only beneficial to those living
in Sullivan County, EPA notes that the finding of failure to attain is
specific to a portion of Sullivan County, Tennessee surrounding Eastman
Chemical based on the Agency's 2013 determination that the Area was not
attaining the 1-hour SO2 standard. Since 2013, EPA has
determined that areas in the vicinity of large SO2-emitting
sources in the rest of the state are meeting the health-based 1-hour
SO2 standard based on an assessment of available air quality
data. Furthermore, based on EPA's 2010 promulgation of the 1-hour
SO2 standard, states were required to submit a SIP revision
to EPA to ensure their SIPs have the necessary provisions to provide
for the implementation, attainment, and maintenance of the standard
pursuant to section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Among other
elements, this revision must include necessary or appropriate
SO2 emission limits and standards, an appropriate air
quality monitoring network, and a

permitting program to prevent any construction of new sources or source
modifications from deteriorating air quality in areas meeting the
NAAQS.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to determine that the Sullivan County
Area failed to attain the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. As a result of this
determination, the State of Tennessee is required under CAA section
179(d) to submit revisions to the Tennessee SIP for the Sullivan
County, Tennessee SO2 nonattainment area to, among other
elements, provide for the attainment of the respective standard as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than April 5, 2027. At this
time, EPA is not prescribing additional measures for the SO2
SIP revisions under CAA section 179(d)(2). Tennessee is required under
CAA section 179(d) to submit a SIP revision meeting the requirements of
sections 110 and 172 of the CAA to EPA by April 5, 2023.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore
was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action itself
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The finding of failure to attain SO2
NAAQS does not apply to tribal areas, and the rule does not impose a
burden on Indian reservation lands or other areas where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Thus, this
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because the effect of this action is to trigger additional
planning requirements under the CAA. This action does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action triggers additional planning requirements under the CAA.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Pollution, Sulfur
dioxide.

    Dated: March 30, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2231 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2231  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (g) Effective May 5, 2022, EPA has determined that the Sullivan
County SO2 nonattainment area (NAA) has failed to attain the
2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date of
October 4, 2018. This determination triggers the requirements of CAA
section 179(d) for the State of Tennessee to submit a revision to the
Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Sullivan County
SO2 NAA to EPA by April 5, 2023. The SIP revision must,
among other elements, provide for the attainment of the 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS in the Sullivan County SO2 NAA as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than April 5, 2027.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-07090 Filed 4-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM: Preliminary 2011 and 2012 Sales and Distribution Data from the California Air Resources Board's Refrigerant Management Program
Figure 1. HCFC Refrigerants Sold or Distributed in California During 2011

                             MT Sold/ Distributed
                       Composition of Refrigerant/Blend
                               Total MT by HCFC

                                     R-22
                                     R-123
                                     R-124
                                    R-142b
                                     R-22
                                     R-123
                                     R-124
                                    R-142b
                                                                          R-123
                                     19.7

                                     100%

                                      0.0
                                     19.7
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                          R-124
                                      0.5

                                     100%

                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.5
                                      0.0
                                                                           R-22
                                     2,540
                                     100%

                                     2,540
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-401A
                                     28.2
                                      53%

                                      34%

                                     14.9
                                      0.0
                                      9.6
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-401B
                                      3.2
                                      61%

                                      28%

                                      2.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.9
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-402A
                                     20.2
                                      38%

                                      7.7
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-402B
                                      0.2
                                      60%

                                      0.1
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-408A
                                     103.6
                                      47%

                                     48.7
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-409A
                                     25.9
                                      60%

                                      25%
                                      15%
                                     15.6
                                      0.0
                                      6.5
                                      3.9
                                                                         R-414A
                                      8.8
                                      51%

                                      29%
                                      17%
                                      4.5
                                      0.0
                                      2.5
                                      1.5
                                                                         R-414B
                                     46.3
                                      50%

                                      39%
                                      10%
                                     23.1
                                      0.0
                                     18.1
                                      4.4
                                                                         R-416A
                                      1.1

                                      40%

                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.5
                                      0.0
                                                                          R-502
                                      2.5
                                      49%

                                      1.2
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
CA Totals

2,658
19.7
 38.5
9.7

Figure 2. HCFC Refrigerants Sold or Distributed in California During 2012

                             MT Sold/ Distributed
                       Composition of Refrigerant/Blend
                               Total MT by HCFC

                                     R-22
                                     R-123
                                     R-124
                                    R-142b
                                     R-22
                                     R-123
                                     R-124
                                    R-142b
                                                                          R-123
                                     16.8

                                     100%

                                      0.0
                                     16.8
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                          R-124
                                      0.5

                                     100%

                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.5
                                      0.0
                                                                           R-22
                                     2,261
                                     100%

                                     2,261
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-401A
                                     19.1
                                      53%

                                      34%

                                     10.1
                                      0.0
                                      6.5
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-401B
                                      3.2
                                      61%

                                      28%

                                      2.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.9
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-402A
                                     16.3
                                      38%

                                      6.2
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-402B
                                      0.2
                                      60%

                                      0.1
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-408A
                                     86.1
                                      47%

                                     40.5
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                                                         R-409A
                                     73.2
                                      60%

                                      25%
                                      15%
                                     43.9
                                      0.0
                                     18.3
                                      11
                                                                         R-414B
                                     41.9
                                      50%

                                      39%
                                      10%
                                      21
                                      0.0
                                     16.3
                                      4.2
                                                                         R-416A
                                      2.1

                                      40%

                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.8
                                      0.0
                                                                          R-502
                                      2.1
                                      49%

                                      1.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
CA Totals

2,386
16.8
43.3
15.2

Key  -  In figures 1 & 2, the column on the far left lists different types of HCFC refrigerants and refrigerant blends. Directly to the right of that column is the number of metric tons (MT) sold for each HCFC refrigerant and refrigerant blend. The next four columns break down the percentages of each HCFC refrigerant contained in each blend. The adjoining four column table converts these percentages into MT for each HCFC refrigerant.
When reading the above tables, please take into account the following considerations:
   > These tables cover most of the HCFC refrigerant sales in California, but there may be some missing data.
   > Note that about 25 percent of the distributors have not reported their 2012 sales information as of May 13, 2013.
   > For 2011 sales, there was probably under-reporting as well, because the reporting requirement was brand new and not all distributors were aware of it.
   > Not included in the tables is the amount of refrigerant "pre-charged" into systems such as residential air-conditioning.
   > Not included in the tables are internet sales, or any out-of-state sellers that ship directly to the refrigerant user.
   > The extent of under-reporting is unknown. For example, in 2011, it is estimated that approximately 10,432 MT of refrigerant were emitted from stationary refrigeration and air-conditioning systems in California. The sales of new, presumably replacement refrigerant, are not even half that amount. Of course, many old, large systems are being replaced with smaller systems, which may explain part of that discrepancy.
         o Note, refrigerant leakage is a small sub-set of actual refrigerant use (leakage) in California. The current tables covering refrigerant leakage only include commercial facilities with at least one system containing more than 0.9 MT of high-GWP refrigerant. Therefore, the tables can only be used on a relative basis.

Source  -  Personal Correspondence between Luke Hall-Jordan, EPA, and Glenn Gallagher, California Air Resources Board Research Division, May 13, 2013


? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS> DISTRIBUTION Page __ 1_ of _ 1_

Project Name: 304( m) OCPSF Detailed Study TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 06/ 17/ 04 Time: 12 p. m.

Company Name: Georgia Pacific Rincon, GA 912 826 5216, X4590 Contact Name: Ellie Ku Codding Phone No.: 703 633 1673 Name: Michelle Liatta Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : Chlor Alkali Plants TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN I called Ms. Liatta to ask if they still operated a chlor alkali plant at their mill. Ms. Liatta left me a voice mail confirming that they do operate a chlor alkali plant at Rincon, GA.


[Federal Register: December 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 244)]
[Notices]
[Page 76415-76417]
[DOCID:fr20de06-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54921; File No. SR-NSCC-2006-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Clarifying and Technical Changes to its
Insurance Processing Service

December 12, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on November 2, 2006, the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been
prepared primarily by NSCC. NSCC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act\2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)
thereunder\3\ so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make clarifying and
technical changes to NSCC's Rule 57 regarding NSCC's Insurance
Processing Service (``IPS'').

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC.

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

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make clarifying and
technical changes to Rule 57 of NSCC's Rules regarding IPS. NSCC
proposes to reformat Rule 57 for clarity. References to services or
functionalities that are not currently offered would be deleted and to
those that have changed since the rule was initially written would be
revised accordingly. These changes are explained below.
    Reformatting of Rule 57 Rule 57 is being reorganized such that (i)
Section 1 of the rule now consolidates all of the general provisions
that will generally apply to all IPS services and (ii) each subsequent
section (Sections 2 through 10) applies to a separate service offering
within IPS. This differs from the format of the current rule in which
some of the services are referenced in a list contained in Section 1 of
the rule and certain other of the services are described in separate,
individual sections of the rule.
    Section 1 Section 1 will contain all of the general provisions that
apply to all services within IPS. Most of these general provisions are
contained in Sections 1 and 2 of the current Rule 57 and with some
exceptions are repeated in subsequent sections of the current rule with
respect to specific services.
    The statement currently contained in Addendum D of NSCC's Rules,
which states that that NSCC does not guarantee money settlement of IPS
transactions, is being restated in Subsection (l) of Section 1 of the
rule. Repositioning the statement in the rule which governs the
insurance services will help clarify to applicants and members that IPS
is not a ``guaranteed service.''
    The last two sentences of current Subsection (d) of Section 2 of
Rule 57, which state that NSCC would adjust IPS data on the instruction
of a participant, are being deleted. Because NSCC acts as a pass-
through of IPS data, it would not generally be expected to make
adjustments on such data.
    Provisions contained in Sections 1 and 2, which are specific to a
particular service offering within IPS, of the current Rule 57 are
being deleted and moved to subsequent sections that are dedicated to
that particular service offering. For example, the material regarding
application information is being moved to Section 3, ``Applications and
Premiums.''
    Section 2, ``Commissions and Compensation'' Section 2 will set
forth the provisions specific to the commission service offered in IPS,
which provisions are currently in Section 3. The service, currently
named ``Commissions and Charge Backs,'' is being renamed ``Commissions
and Compensation'' to reflect that the service currently accommodates
other types of compensation payable between insurance carriers and
distributors such as bonus amounts. General provisions that are not
specific to the Commissions and Charge Backs service and that apply
generally to all IPS services are being deleted from this section and
placed in Section 1 as discussed above.
    Sections 3(d) and (e) of the current rule, which state that NSCC
may offer members the ability to cancel commission transactions, are
being deleted. At the time the commission service was originally
proposed, NSCC anticipated that it would develop such an
enhancement.\5\ The enhancement has not been developed and there are no
plans to develop it at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39096 (September 19,
1997), 62 FR 50416 (September 25, 1997) [File No. SR-NSCC-96-21].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions in the current rule regarding the date on which
commission transactions may settle are being rewritten to use
terminology consistent with analogous provisions elsewhere in the
rules.
    Section 3, ``Applications and Premiums'' Section 3 will set forth
the provisions that are specific to the applications and premiums
services in IPS, which provisions are currently in Sections 2 and 4.
The provisions of the current Sections 2 and 4 that are of general
applicability to all IPS services are deleted from these sections and
placed in Section 1 as discussed above.
    Section 2 (e) of the current rule, which states that NSCC will
reject application data if it has four or more errors, is being
deleted. The precise data requirements of the various services change
from time to time as new fields are added or deleted or made mandatory
or optional, and the data requirements therefore are more typically
contained in the NSCC user guides and other documentation rather than
being set forth in the text of the NSCC Rules.
    Section 4, ``Licensing and Appointments'' Section 4 will set forth
the provisions specific to the licensing and appointments services
within IPS. In the current rule, the reference to the licensing and
appointments service is contained in Sections 1 and 4 in the list of
types of data that may be transmitted through IPS.
    Section 5, ``Positions and Valuations'' Section 5 will set forth
the provisions specific to the positions and valuations services within
IPS. Section 5 of the current rule, which regards a product repository
service which may be offered by NSCC, is being deleted. NSCC determined
not to offer this service after the proposed rule change for the
service had been filed and approved.\6\ NSCC has no plans to offer such
a service at this time and would file a proposed rule change should it
determine to do so after this provision is deleted from the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47644 (April 7, 2003),
68 FR 17850 (April 11, 2003) [File No. SR-NSCC-2003-04].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6, ``ACATS/Transfers'' Section 6 will set forth the
provisions specific to the ACATS transfer service within IPS and is
reworded slightly differently from the current Section 6 in order to
use terminology that is consistent with analogous terminology elsewhere
in NSCC's rules.
    Section 7, ``Asset Pricing'' Section 6 sets forth the provisions
specific to the asset pricing service within IPS.
    Section 8, ``Financial Activity Reporting'' Section 7 will set
forth the provisions specific to the financial activity reporting
service within IPS, which service is referenced in Section 1 of the
current rule in the list of types of data that may be transmitted
through IPS.
    Section 9,``In Force Transactions'' Section 9 will set forth the
provisions specific to the In Force Transactions services within IPS.
    Section 10, ``InsurExpress'' Section 10 will set forth the
provisions specific to the InsurExpress service within IPS. This
service was the subject of a proposed rule change regarding the
insurance service that was proposed to be offered under the name
``Portal.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48896 (December 9,
2003), 68 FR 70553 (December 18, 2003) [File No. SR-NSCC-2003-18].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder because
in clarifying NSCC's Rules to more accurately and clearly set forth the
nature of the insurance processing services already offered by NSCC,
the proposed rule change effects a change in an existing service of
NSCC that (i) does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities
or funds in the custody or control of NSCC and (ii) does not
significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of NSCC or
those members using the service.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any

impact or impose any burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act\8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)
thereunder\9\ because the proposed rule effects a change in an existing
service of NSCC that (i) Does not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of NSCC and (ii) does not
significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of NSCC or
those members using the service. At any time within sixty days of the
filing of such rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such
rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
) or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NSCC-2006-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2006-14. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on
NSCC's Web site at http://www.nscc.com. All comments received will be

posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2006-14 and should be submitted on
or before January 10, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21717 Filed 12-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P