Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 72903 

1See 77 FR 41051. 

2CO2e is defined as the mass of the specific GHG 

(in tons), multiplied by its Global Warming 

Potential, as codified in 40 CFR part 98. 

3See 134 S.Ct. 2427. 

4Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 

D.C. Cir., No. 09–1322, 06/26/20, judgment entered 

for No. 09–1322 on 04/10/2015. 

5 Id. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0274; FRL–9937–25– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Plantwide Applicability Limits for 

Greenhouse Gases 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a May 12, 

2014 State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia by the 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (VADEQ). This revision adds 

Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) 

provisions for Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 

to Virginia’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0274. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) 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 electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or may be viewed 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On June 5, 2015 (80 FR 32078), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, 

EPA proposed approval of Virginia’s 

May 12, 2014 SIP submittal. The 

revision incorporates PAL provisions for 

GHGs into Virginia’s PSD program. 

In a June 3, 2010 final rulemaking 

action, EPA promulgated regulations 

known as ‘‘the Tailoring Rule,’’ which 

phased in permitting requirements for 

GHG emissions from stationary sources 

under the CAA PSD and title V 

permitting programs. See 75 FR 31514. 

For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which 

began on January 2, 2011, PSD or title 

V requirements applied to sources of 

GHG emissions only if the sources were 

subject to PSD or title V ‘‘anyway’’ due 

to their emissions of non-GHG 

pollutants. These sources are referred to 

as ‘‘anyway sources.’’ Step 2 of the 

Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 

2011, applied the PSD and title V 

permitting requirements under the CAA 

to sources that were classified as major, 

and, thus, required to obtain a permit, 

based solely on their potential GHG 

emissions and to modifications of 

otherwise major sources that required a 

PSD permit because they increased only 

GHGs above applicable levels in the 

EPA regulations. Subsequently, on May 

13, 2011, EPA took final action to 

approve a revision to Virginia’s PSD 

SIP, incorporating preconstruction 

permitting requirements for major 

stationary sources and major 

modifications of GHGs, consistent with 

the Federal PSD requirements at the 

time. See 76 FR 27898. 

In a June 12, 2012 final rulemaking 

action entitled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 

and GHG Plantwide Applicability 

Limits’’ 1 (hereafter, Tailoring Rule Step 

3), EPA promulgated a number of 

streamlining measures intended to 

improve the administration of GHG PSD 

permitting programs. Included in that 

rulemaking were provisions to allow 

sources to obtain GHG PALs on a carbon 

dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 2 basis, rather 

than strictly on a mass basis. A PAL is 

an emissions limitation for a single 

pollutant expressed in tons per year 

(tpy) that is enforceable as a practical 

matter and is established source-wide in 

accordance with specific criteria. See 40 

CFR 52.21(aa)(2)(v). PALs offer an 

alternative method for determining 

major New Source Review (NSR) 

applicability: If a source can maintain 

its overall emissions of the PAL 

pollutant below the PAL level, the 

source can make a change without 

triggering PSD review. Virginia’s May 

12, 2014 submittal incorporates PAL 

provisions into Virginia’s PSD program, 

consistent with EPA’s Tailoring Rule 

Step 3. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. Environmental Protection 

Agency,3 issued a decision addressing 

the Tailoring Rule and the application 

of PSD permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. The Supreme Court said that 

the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also said that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). The 

Supreme Court decision effectively 

upheld PSD permitting requirements for 

GHG emissions under Step 1 of the 

Tailoring Rule for ‘‘anyway sources’’ 

and invalidated PSD permitting 

requirements for Step 2 sources. 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued 

an amended judgment vacating the 

regulations that implemented Step 2 of 

the Tailoring Rule, but not the 

regulations that implement Step 1 of the 

Tailoring Rule.4 The amended judgment 

preserves, without the need for 

additional rulemaking by the EPA, the 

application of the BACT requirement to 

GHG emissions from sources that are 

required to obtain a PSD permit based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs (i.e., the ‘‘anyway’’ sources). The 

D.C. Circuit’s judgment vacated the 

regulations at issue in the litigation, 

including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), ‘‘to 

the extent they require a stationary 

source to obtain a PSD permit if 

greenhouse gases are the only pollutant 

(i) that the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the applicable 

major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emissions 

increase from a modification.’’ 5

EPA may need to take additional steps 

to revise federal PSD rules in light of the 

Supreme Court decision and recent D.C. 

Circuit judgment. In addition, EPA 

anticipates that many states will revise 

their existing SIP-approved PSD 

programs. EPA is not expecting states to 

have revised their existing PSD program 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations at this juncture. However, 

EPA is evaluating PSD program 

submissions to assure that the state’s 

program correctly addresses GHGs 

consistent with both decisions. 

Virginia’s currently approved PSD SIP 

continues to require that PSD permits 

(otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs) contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT when sources 

emit or increase GHGs in the amount of 

75,000 tpy, measured as CO2e. Although 

Virginia’s SIP may also currently 

contain provisions that are no longer 

necessary in light of the D.C. Circuit’s 

judgment or the Supreme Court 

decision, this does not prevent EPA 

from approving the submission 

addressed in this rule. This rulemaking 

action does not add any GHG permitting 

requirements that are inconsistent with 

either decision. 

Likewise, the GHG PAL provisions 

being approved in this action include 

some provisions that may no longer be 

appropriate in light of both the D.C. 

Circuit judgment and the Supreme 

Court decision. Since the Supreme 

Court has determined that sources and 

modifications may not be defined as 

‘‘major’’ solely on the basis of the level 

of GHGs emitted or increased, PALs for 

GHGs may no longer have value in some 

situations where a source might have 

triggered PSD based on GHG emissions 

alone. However, PALs for GHGs may 

still have a role to play in determining 

whether a modification that triggers PSD 

for a pollutant other than GHGs should 

also be subject to BACT for GHGs. These 

provisions, like the other GHG 

provisions discussed previously, may be 

revised at some future time. However, 

these provisions do not add new 

requirements for sources or 

modifications that only emit or increase 

GHGs above the major source threshold 

or the 75,000 tpy GHG level in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PAL 

provisions provide increased flexibility 

to sources that wish to address their 

GHG emissions in a PAL. Since this 

flexibility may still be valuable to 

sources in at least one context described 

above, EPA is approving these 

provisions as a revision to the Virginia 

SIP at this juncture. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The revision includes amendments to 

9VAC5–85: ‘‘Permits for Stationary 

Sources of Pollutants Subject to 

Regulation.’’ Specifically, 9VAC5–85– 

40: ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Area Permit Actions,’’ and 

9VAC5–85–50: ‘‘Definitions’’ are being 

amended. Additionally, 9VAC5–85–55: 

‘‘Actual plantwide applicability limits,’’ 

is being added to the SIP. The 

amendments are consistent with the 

GHG PAL provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as 

promulgated by EPA on July 12, 2012. 

See 77 FR 41072–41075. These 

provisions were effective in Virginia on 

March 13, 2014. Other specific 

requirements of the May 12, 2014 SIP 

submittal and the rationale for EPA’s 

approval are explained in the NPR and 

will not be restated here. No comments 

were received on the NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving VADEQ’s May 12, 

2014 SIP submittal as a revision to the 

Virginia SIP. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking action, EPA is 

finalizing regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

VADEQ rules regarding GHG PALs 

discussed in section II of this preamble. 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov, or they may be 

viewed at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal counterparts 

. . . .’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, 

documents or other information needed 

for civil or criminal enforcement under 

one of these programs could not be 

privileged because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 72905 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the 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 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for 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 January 22, 2016. 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 

pertaining to Virginia’s PSD program 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 28, 2015. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entries 

under Chapter 85 for Sections 5–85–40 

and 5–85–50 and adding an entry for 

Section 5–85–55 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date 

Explanation 

[former SIP 

citation] 

*******

9 VAC 5, Chapter 85 Permits for Stationary Sources of Pollutants Subject to Regulation 

*******

Part III Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Actions 

5–85–40 ............................ Prevention of Significant Deterioration Area Permit 

Actions.

03/13/14 11/23/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date 

Explanation 

[former SIP 

citation] 

5–85–50 ............................ Definitions .................................................................... 03/13/14 11/23/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

5–85–55 ............................ Actual plantwide applicability limits (PALs) ................. 03/13/14 11/23/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Added. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–29680 Filed 11–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[EPA–HQ–TRI–2015–0011; FRL–9937–12– 

OEI] 

RIN 2025–AA41 

Addition of 1-Bromopropane; 

Community Right-to-Know Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is adding 1- 

bromopropane to the list of toxic 

chemicals subject to reporting under 

section 313 of the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA) of 1986 and section 6607 of the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. 

1-Bromopropane has been classified by 

the National Toxicology Program in 

their 13th Report on Carcinogens as 

‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a human 

carcinogen.’’ The EPA has determined 

that 1-bromopropane meets the EPCRA 

section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria because it 

can reasonably be anticipated to cause 

cancer in humans. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 30, 2015, and shall apply for 

the reporting year beginning January 1, 

2016 (reports due July 1, 2017). 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2015–0011. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) 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 electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental 

Analysis Division, Office of Information 

Analysis and Access (2842T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566– 

0743; fax number: 202–566–0677; email: 

bushman.daniel@epa.gov, for specific 

information on this notice. For general 

information on EPCRA section 313, 

contact the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll 

free at (800) 424–9346 (select menu 

option 3) or (703) 412–9810 in Virginia 

and Alaska or toll free, TDD (800) 553– 

7672, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/

contacts/infocenter/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this notice apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, process, 

or otherwise use 1-bromopropane. 

Potentially affected categories and 

entities may include, but are not limited 

to: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ........................................... Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to SIC codes 20 through 

39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 

336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 211112*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 

511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512220, 512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*. 

*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes. 

Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 

through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (correspond to SIC 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 

212222, 212231, 212234, 212299 (correspond to SIC 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); 

or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities that combust coal 

and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC 4911, 

4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited to facilities previously classified 

in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC 

5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent 

recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, 

NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (corresponds to SIC 4953, Refuse 

Systems). 

Federal Government ....................... Federal facilities. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Some of the 

entities listed in the table have 

exemptions and/or limitations regarding 

coverage, and other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be affected. 

To determine whether your facility 

would be affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in part 372 subpart 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES