5288 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(m) Motions for reconsideration or 

clarification. Motions to reconsider or 

clarify any final disposition of the 

Environmental Appeals Board must be 

filed within 10 days after service of that 

order. Motions for reconsideration must 

set forth the matters claimed to have 

been erroneously decided and the 

nature of the alleged errors. Motions for 

clarification must set forth with 

specificity the portion of the decision 

for which clarification is being sought 

and the reason clarification is necessary. 

Motions for reconsideration or 

clarification under this provision must 

be directed to, and decided by, the 

Environmental Appeals Board. Motions 

for reconsideration or clarification 

directed to the Administrator, rather 

than the Environmental Appeals Board, 

will not be considered, unless such 

motion relates to a matter that the 

Environmental Appeals Board has 

referred to the Administrator pursuant 

to § 124.2 and for which the 

Administrator has issued the final order. 

A motion for reconsideration or 

clarification does not stay the effective 

date of the final order unless the 

Environmental Appeals Board 

specifically so orders. 

(n) Board authority. In exercising its 

duties and responsibilities under this 

part, the Environmental Appeals Board 

may do all acts and take all measures 

necessary for the efficient, fair, and 

impartial adjudication of issues arising 

in an appeal under this part including, 

but not limited to, imposing procedural 

sanctions against a party who, without 

adequate justification, fails or refuses to 

comply with this part or an order of the 

Environmental Appeals Board. Such 

sanctions may include drawing adverse 

inferences against a party, striking a 

party’s pleadings or other submissions 

from the record, and denying any or all 

relief sought by the party in the 

proceeding. Additionally, for good 

cause, the Board may relax or suspend 

the filing requirements prescribed by 

these rules or Board order. 

(o) General NPDES permits. (1) 

Persons affected by an NPDES general 

permit may not file a petition under this 

section or otherwise challenge the 

conditions of a general permit in further 

Agency proceedings. Instead, they may 

do either of the following: 

(i) Challenge the general permit by 

filing an action in court; or 

(ii) Apply for an individual NPDES 

permit under § 122.21 as authorized in 

§ 122.28 of this chapter and may then 

petition the Environmental Appeals 

Board to review the individual permit as 

provided by this section. 

(2) As provided in § 122.28(b)(3) of 

this chapter, any interested person may 

also petition the Director to require an 

individual NPDES permit for any 

discharger eligible for authorization to 

discharge under an NPDES general 

permit. 

(p) The Environmental Appeals Board 

also may decide on its own initiative to 

review any condition of any RCRA, UIC, 

NPDES, or PSD permit decision issued 

under this part for which review is 

available under paragraph (a) of this 

section. The Environmental Appeals 

Board must act under this paragraph 

within 30 days of the service date of 

notice of the Regional Administrator’s 

action. 

■ 5. Paragraph (b)(1) of § 124.60 is 

amended by removing the reference to 

‘‘§ 124.19(f)’’ in the first sentence and 

adding in its place ‘‘§ 124.19(k)(2)’’. 

PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED 

PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE 

HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT 

PROGRAM 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 270 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 

6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974. 

■ 7. Paragraph (f)(3) of § 270.42 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 270.42 Permit modification at the request 

of permittee. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) An automatic authorization that 

goes into effect under paragraph 

(b)(6)(iii) or (v) of this section may be 

appealed under the permit appeal 

procedures of 40 CFR 124.19; however, 

the permittee may continue to conduct 

the activities pursuant to the automatic 

authorization unless and until a final 

determination is made by the 

Environmental Appeals Board to grant 

review and remand the permit decision. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Paragraph (a) of 270.155 is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 270.155 May the decision to approve or 

deny my RAP application be 

administratively appealed? 

(a) Any commenter on the draft RAP 

or notice of intent to deny, or any 

participant in any public hearing(s) on 

the draft RAP, may appeal the Director’s 

decision to approve or deny your RAP 

application to EPA’s Environmental 

Appeals Board under § 124.19 of this 

chapter. Any person who did not file 

comments, or did not participate in any 

public hearing(s) on the draft RAP, may 

petition for administrative review only 

to the extent of the changes from the 

draft to the final RAP decision. Appeals 

of RAPs may be made to the same extent 

as for final permit decisions under 

§ 124.15 of this chapter (or a decision 

under § 270.29 to deny a permit for the 

active life of a RCRA hazardous waste 

management facility or unit). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–01318 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258 

[EPA–R01–RCRA–2012–0944; FRL–9771–7] 

Adequacy of Massachusetts Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action approves a 

modification to Massachusetts’s 

approved municipal solid waste landfill 

(MSWLF) program. The approved 

modification allows the State to issue 

Research, Development, and 

Demonstration (RD&D) Permits to 

owners and operators of MSWLF in 

accordance with its State law. On March 

22, 2004, EPA issued final regulations 

allowing research, development, and 

demonstration (RD&D) permits to be 

issued to certain municipal solid waste 

landfills by approved states. On 

December 7, 2012 Massachusetts 

submitted an application to EPA Region 

1 seeking Federal approval of its RD&D 

requirements. After thorough review 

EPA Region 1 is determining that 

Massachusetts’s RD&D permit 

requirements are adequate through this 

direct final action. 

DATES: This determination of RD&D 

program adequacy for Massachusetts 

will become effective April 25, 2013 

without further notice unless EPA 

receives adverse comments on or before 

March 26, 2013. If adverse comments 

are received, EPA will review the 

comments and publish another Federal 

Register document responding to the 

comments and either affirming or 

revising the initial decision. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

RCRA–2012–0944, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: hsieh.juiyu@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (617) 918–0646, to the 

attention of Juiyu Hsieh. 

• Mail: Juiyu Hsieh, RCRA Waste 

Management and UST Section, Office of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 5289 

Site Remediation and Restoration 

(OSRR07–1), EPA New England— 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100, Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Juiyu Hsieh, RCRA 

Waste Management and UST Section, 

Office of Site Remediation and 

Restoration (OSRR07–1), EPA New 

England—Region 1, 5 Post Office 

Square, 7th floor, Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Office’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: Identify your comments 

as relating to Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

RCRA–2012–0944. EPA’s policy is that 

all comments received will be included 

in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or claimed to be other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–R01–RCRA–2012–0944. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although it may be listed in the index, 

some information might not be publicly 

available, e.g., 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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office 

Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109– 

3912; by appointment only; tel: (617) 

918–1990. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Juiyu Hsieh, Remediation and 

Restoration II Branch (Mail Code 

OSRR07–1), U.S. EPA Region 1, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109, telephone: (617) 918–1646, 

hsieh.juiyu@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a 

final rule amending the municipal solid 

waste landfill criteria in 40 CFR part 

258 to allow for research, development 

and demonstration (RD&D) permits (69 

FR 13242). This rule allows for 

variances from specified criteria for a 

limited period of time, to be 

implemented through state-issued 

RD&D permits. RD&D permits are 

available only in states with approved 

MSWLF permit programs that have been 

modified to incorporate RD&D permit 

authority. While States are not required 

to seek approval to allow permits under 

this new provision, those States that are 

interested in providing RD&D permits to 

owners and operators of MSWLFs must 

seek approval from EPA before issuing 

such permits. Approval procedures for 

new provisions of 40 CFR part 258 are 

outlined in 40 CFR 239.12. 

Massachusetts’s MSWLF permit 

program was approved on July 5, 1995 

(60 FR 34982). On December 7, 2012, 

Massachusetts submitted an application 

to EPA Region 1 seeking Federal 

approval of its RD&D project program in 

conformance with Federal Requirements 

at 40 CFR 258.4. The Massachusetts 

RD&D program utilizes existing State 

regulations at 310 C.M.R. 19.080 and 

310 C.M.R. 19.062, which allow the 

State to issue variances, and 

demonstration project permits, 

respectively. The State has the authority 

under these regulations to ensure that 

all federal requirements are met, by 

limiting the variances issued to those 

that are federally allowed, and by 

attaching conditions and requirements 

to any variances and permits that are 

issued which ensure that all federal 

requirements will be met. The 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection has entered 

into a Memorandum of Agreement with 

the EPA in which it has committed to 

always exercise its authority to ensure 

that all federal requirements are met. 

B. Decision 

After a thorough review, EPA is 

determining that the Massachusetts 

RD&D permit provisions are adequate to 

comply with the Federal criteria as set 

out in 40 CFR 258.4. 

C. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action approves State solid waste 

requirements pursuant to Resource 

Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

Section 4005 and imposes no Federal 

requirements. Therefore, this rule 

complies with applicable executive 

orders and statutory provisions as 

follows: 

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning Review—The Office of 

Management and Budget has exempted 

this action from its review under 

Executive Order 12866; 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

action does not impose an information 

collection burden under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act; 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act: Since 

this action will not add any 

requirements not already imposed 

under State law, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: 

Because this action approves preexisting requirement under State law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by State law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act; 

5. Executive Order 13132: 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action because 

this action will not have federalism 

implications (i.e., there are no 

substantial direct effects on States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between Federal and 

State governments); 

6. Executive Order 13175: 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments—Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action because it will not have Tribal 

implications (i.e., there are no 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian Tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes); 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
5290 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 17 / Friday, January 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection 

of Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks—This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not economically 

significant and it is not based on health 

or safety risks; 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use: This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211 

because it is not a significant regulatory 

action as defined in Executive Order 

12866; 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act: This provision 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impracticable. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

material specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards and 

bodies. EPA approves State programs so 

long as the State programs adequately 

meet the criteria set out in 40 CFR part 

258. It would be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, in its review of 

a State program, to require the use of 

any particular voluntary consensus 

standard in place of another standard 

that meets the 40 CFR part 258 criteria. 

Thus, the National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act does not apply to this 

action; 

10. Congressional Review Act: EPA 

will submit a report containing this 

action and other information required 

by the Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication in the 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 239 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Intergovernmental relations, Waste 

treatment and disposal. 

40 CFR Part 258 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waste treatment disposal, 

Water pollution control. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of section 2002, 4005 and 4010(c) 

of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 

42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a). 

Dated: January 4, 2013. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England, Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01435 Filed 1–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0610; FRL–9770–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Requirements for 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Maryland. 

These revisions pertain to the adoption 

of various test methods, calculations 

methods, work practice standards and 

exemptions which make Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

regulations more consistent with EPA’s 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) 

for seven source categories. These 

categories are: Paper, film, and foil 

coatings; industrial cleaning solvents; 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings; large appliance coatings; offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing; flat wood paneling coatings; 

and flexible package printing. EPA is 

approving these revisions to reduce 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from these seven categories 

which will help Maryland attain and 

maintain the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone 

in accordance with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0610. 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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection 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 Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or 

by email at cripps.christoher@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 23, 2012 (77 FR 64787), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maryland. The NPR proposed approval 

of revisions to Maryland regulations for 

the control of emissions of VOC from 

seven categories of sources covered by 

a CTG. The State of Maryland submitted 

the formal SIP revision (Revision No. 

12–03) on April 4, 2012. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On April 5, 2012, EPA received a SIP 

revision submittal from the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

which addressed sources of VOC 

emissions covered by EPA’s CTGs for 

the following seven source categories: 

(1) Paper, film, and foil coatings; (2) 

industrial cleaning solvents; (3) 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings; (4) large appliance coatings; (5) 

offset lithographic printing and 

letterpress printing; (6) flat wood 

paneling coatings; and (7) flexible 

package printing. This SIP revision 

submittal included amended Regulation 

.04 ‘‘Testing and Monitoring’’ under 

COMAR 26.11.01 ‘‘General 

Administrative Provisions’’ (COMAR 

26.11.01.04) and Regulation .02 

‘‘Applicability, Determining 

Compliance, Reporting and General 

Requirements’’ under COMAR 26.11.19 

‘‘Volatile Organic Compounds from 

Specific Processes’’ (COMAR 

26.11.19.02). These amendments pertain 

to the adoption of various test methods, 

calculations methods, work practice 

standards and exemptions which make 

MDE’s regulations more consistent with 

EPA’s CTGs for these seven source 

categories. 

An explanation of the CAA’s 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS as they apply to 

Maryland, the specific details of the 

amendments to COMAR 26.11.01.04 

and COMAR 26.11.19.02 and EPA’s 

rationale for approving this SIP revision 

were provided in the NPR and will not 

be restated here. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with