Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 46199

conference on the issues involved. In

January 1995, FDA and the National

Institutes of Health cosponsored a

public forum on informed consent in

clinical research conducted in

emergency circumstances. In the

Federal Register of September 21, 1995

(60 FR 49086), FDA proposed to amend

its regulations to provide an exception

to informed consent for research of

emergency treatment for persons with

acute and unpredictable life-threatening

illnesses. After analysis of over 90

comments, in the Federal Register

October 2, 1996 (61 FR 51498), FDA

published the final rule (§ 50.24) that is

the subject of this public meeting. The

Department of Health and Human

Services simultaneously published (61

FR 51531, October 2, 1996) a

functionally equivalent waiver of its

human subject protection regulations

(45 CFR part 46).

The exception to the normal

requirements for obtaining informed

consent (61 FR 51531) is narrow in

scope and available for research

conducted in emergency circumstances

on treatments for life-threatening

conditions. The exception requires

additional protections beyond those

provided for human research subjects in

other research.

While § 50.24 provides specific

requirements for use of the exception to

informed consent, FDA recognized that

local conditions vary throughout the

Nation, and placed considerable

discretion and responsibility in the

IRB’s that will review proposed studies,

the clinical investigators who will

conduct the studies, and the sponsors

who will initiate the studies and utilize

the results. Questions have arisen as to

the appropriate methods to satisfy the

regulatory requirements imposed for use

of the exception.

At the public meeting, participants

will examine the methods of providing

the additional protections required

when utilizing the exception to

informed consent. Presentations and

discussions will address the specific

measures required. Participants will be

provided opportunities to share their

views and information regarding

protocol design, study conduct, and

experiences of clinical research

conducted or planned under the

exception to informed consent.

On September 29, 1997, the meeting

will open with discussions describing

how the final rule was developed, what

FDA expects to receive from sponsors,

and how to determine whether clinical

equipoise exists between standard

therapy and an investigational

procedure. Representatives of a study

sponsor will describe how that study

has been implemented at multiple study

sites. A panel of experts will discuss

issues related to consultation with

representatives of the community where

the research will be conducted and from

which subjects will be drawn, if

different, and disclosure of the research

to the community. A session of open

discussion will provide an opportunity

for audience participation. A second

panel of experts will discuss issues

related to procedures for seeking

consent from a subject’s legal

representative, and documenting the

attempts to obtain consent. A session of

open discussion will follow.

On September 30, 1997, the meeting

will open with presentations describing

the function and operation of data safety

monitoring boards that are required for

studies under the final rule, as well as

the other requirements of the final rule.

A representative of a study sponsor will

describe the preparation for and

coordination of a multi-site study. A

panel of experts will discuss the

circumstances in which it is appropriate

to use the final rule, and how the

different parties involved should

interact with each other to produce a

useful study. A session of open

discussion will follow and then the

meeting will conclude.

All sessions of the meeting are open

to the public; however, open seating is

limited to 300. Those persons interested

in attending should submit registration

information, including name,

organization name, address, telephone

and fax numbers to the contact listed in

this document. There is no registration

fee for this public meeting, but

advanced registration is recommended,

as preregistrants will have preference if

seating capacity is exceeded. Interested

parties are encouraged to register early

because space is limited.

Interested persons may, on or before

October 31, 1997, submit to the Dockets

Management Branch (address above)

written comments regarding the

workshop. Two copies of any comments

are to be submitted, except that

individuals may submit one copy.

Comments are to be identified with the

docket number found in brackets in the

heading of this document. Received

comments may be seen in the office

above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Additional information as well as a

registration form is also available at

FDA’s website at http.//www.fda.gov.

Dated: August 22, 1997.

William B. Schultz,

Deputy Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 97–23123 Filed 8–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD040–3018a; FRL–5881–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Control of Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions From Sheet-Fed

and Web Lithographic Printing and

Paper Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the State of Maryland on

July 11, 1995. These revisions establish

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emission reduction requirements for

sheet-fed and web lithographic printing

operations, and paper, fabric, vinyl, and

other plastic coating operations

throughout the State of Maryland under

COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic

Compounds from Specific Processes.

EPA is also approving the

administrative changes to Maryland’s

regulations for VOC emissions from

specific processes. The intended effect

of this action is to approve these

provisions into the Maryland SIP, in

accordance with the SIP submittal and

revision provisions of the Clean Air Act

(the Act). This action is being taken

under section 110 of the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective November 3, 1997 unless by

October 2, 1997, adverse or critical

comments are received. If the effective

date is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO and

Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode

3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107 and the Maryland Department of

the Environment, 2500 Broening

Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn M. Donahue, (215) 566–2095, at

the EPA Region III office address listed

above, or via e-mail at

donahue.carolyn@epamail.epa.gov.

While information may be requested via

e-mail, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above Region III address.
46200 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

11, 1995, the Maryland Department of

the Environment (MDE) submitted new

and revised regulations to EPA as State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions.

These regulations control emissions of

VOCs throughout the State. MDE

submitted these SIP revision requests

pursuant to the rate-of-progress (ROP)

requirements of section 182 of the Act.

Specifically, Maryland has adopted

VOC control measures for lithographic

printing operations and paper coating

operations. A more detailed analysis of

Maryland’s submittal is contained in the

Technical Support Document for this

action.

Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires

states with ozone nonattainment areas

classified as moderate or above to

reduce VOC emissions 15% from 1990

baseline levels. States were required to

achieve the 15% VOC emission

reduction by 1996. This ROP

requirement, known as the 15% plan,

was due to EPA as a SIP revision by

November 15, 1993.

In Maryland, 15% plans were

required for the Baltimore severe ozone

nonattainment area, the Maryland

portion of the Philadelphia severe ozone

nonattainment area, and the Maryland

portion of the Metropolitan Washington,

DC serious ozone nonattainment area.

Maryland submitted the required 15%

plans to EPA as SIP revisions on July 12,

1995. In these 15% plans, Maryland

takes credit for the emission reductions

achieved through the VOC regulations

that Maryland submitted as SIP

revisions on July 11, 1995. These

regulations must be approved into

Maryland’s SIP before the 15% plans

can be approved.

Summary of SIP Revisions

State Submittal: COMAR 26.11.19.11

Control of VOC Emissions From SheetFed and Web Lithographic Printing

This revision establishes standards for

lithographic printing operations from

sheet-fed and web printers. EPA

approved subsections A, B, and C of this

regulation (59 FR 60908, November 29,

1994) into the Maryland SIP. On

October 18, 1993, Maryland withdrew

sections D and E of the lithographic

printing regulation from federal

consideration, but resubmitted the

regulation with two sets of amendments

on July 11, 1995. The first set of

amendments was adopted by the state of

Maryland on July 24, 1991 and effective

August 19, 1991. The second set of

amendments was adopted by the State

on May 5, 1995 and effective on June 5,

1995.

General Provisions

This SIP revision applies to

regulations .01, .07, .10, and .11 under

COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic

Compounds from Specific Processes.

Administrative revisions to sections .01,

.07, and .10, such as recodifying term

definitions, result from revisions to

section .11.

The lithographic printing regulation

applies to a person who owns or

operates a lithographic web printing

press in any facility where the actual

VOC emissions from all lithographic

web printing presses exceed 100 pounds

per day, or to a person who owns or

operates a sheet-fed lithographic

printing press of a cylinder width 18

inches or greater. The title of this

regulation was amended to

‘‘Lithographic Printing’’ from ‘‘Other

Miscellaneous Printing and Coating

Processes.’’ This regulation does not

apply to printing on fabric, metal, or

plastic.

Requirements for Sheet-Fed Printers

A person may not use any sheet-fed

letter or lithographic printing press with

a cylinder width of 18 inches or greater

unless the fountain solution is

refrigerated to maintain a temperature

less than 55° F (if isopropyl alcohol is

used). Also, a temperature indicator

must be installed to monitor fountain

solution temperature if the solution is

refrigerated, and the fountain solution

must contain less than 8.5 percent

isopropyl alcohol by weight.

Requirements for Lithographic Web

Printers

A person operating a lithographic web

printing press shall operate the press

only if the dryer exhaust is ducted to a

control device that is constructed,

operated and maintained to achieve an

overall control efficiency of 90 percent

or more. Also, isopropyl alcohol must

not be used in the fountain solution.

Requirements for all Lithographic

Printing Presses

A person using VOC-containing

materials to clean printing presses is

required to store all waste material

containing VOC in closed containers,

maintain lids on VOC-containing

cleanup materials when not in use, and

participate, upon request by MDE, in the

evaluation of non-VOC and low-VOC

cleaning materials when these materials

have the potential to be substitutes for

currently used materials. Also, good

operating practices for persons who

clean printing equipment must be

established in writing and made

available upon request from MDE.

EPA Evaluation: These revisions,

which regulate VOC emissions from

lithographic printing operations, will

result in significant enforceable VOC

emission reductions. These reductions

are needed for Maryland’s 15% plans.

EPA has determined that Maryland’s

regulation, COMAR 26.11.19.11,

Lithographic Printing, as well as the

administrative changes to COMAR

26.11.19.01, .07 and .10, are approvable

as SIP revisions.

State Submittal: Revision to COMAR

26.11.19.07 Control of VOC Emissions

From Paper, Fabric, Vinyl, and Other

Plastic Parts Coating

This regulation establishes standards

for the application of coating materials

on paper, fabric, vinyl, and other plastic

substances. EPA has previously

approved revisions to this regulation on

September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46180) and

November 29, 1994 (59 FR 60908).

Requirements for Paper, Fabric and

Vinyl Coating

This regulation, COMAR

26.11.19.07.B, applies to a person who

performs web or sheet-fed paper, fabric

or vinyl coating at a facility where the

total facility VOC emissions are more

than 50 pounds per day.

Requirements for Plastic Parts Coating

Also, a person may not emit more

than 20 pounds per day of VOC from

any plastic parts coating installation,

unless the coating contains less than 3

pounds of VOC per gallon of coating

minus water. This revision adds section

E to COMAR 26.11.19.07 Paper, Fabric,

Vinyl and Other Plastic Parts Coating.

EPA Evaluation: These revisions,

which regulate VOC emissions from

paper, fabric, vinyl and other plastic

parts coating operations, will result in

significant enforceable VOC emission

reductions. These reductions are needed

for Maryland’s 15% plans. EPA has

determined that the revisions to

Maryland’s regulation COMAR

26.11.19.07 are approvable as SIP

revisions.

EPA is approving these SIP revisions

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revisions should

adverse or critical comments be filed.

This action will be effective November

3, 1997 unless, within 30 days of

publication, adverse or critical

comments are received.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 46201

If EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this action will be

effective on November 3, 1997.

Final Action

EPA is approving revisions to the

Maryland SIP to establish VOC control

requirements for sheet-fed and web

lithographic printing operations, and

paper, fabric, vinyl and other plastic

coating operations. These regulations

achieve fully enforceable VOC emission

reductions.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Regional Administrator certifies that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed/promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action to approve Maryland’s VOC

control regulations for sheet-fed and

web lithographic printing and paper

coating must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by November 3,

1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: August 15, 1997.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, subpart V of chapter

I, title 40 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart V—Maryland

2. Section 52.1070 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c) (126) and (127) to

read as follows:

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(126) Revisions to the Maryland State

Implementation Plan submitted on July

11, 1995 by the Maryland Department of

the Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of July 11, 1995 from the

Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting additions and

deletions to Maryland’s State

Implementation Plan, pertaining to

volatile organic compound regulations

in Maryland’s air quality regulations,

Code of Maryland Administrative

Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.

(B) Revision to COMAR 26.11.19.11

Control of VOC Emissions from SheetFed and Web Lithographic Printing,

adopted by the Secretary of the

Environment on May 5, 1995, and

effective on June 5, 1995, including the

following:

(1) Deletion of COMAR 26.11.19.11

title, ‘‘Other Miscellaneous Printing and

Coating Processes’’ and addition of new

title, ‘‘Lithographic Printing.’’

(2) Deletion of COMAR

26.11.19.11.A(4), definition for the term

‘‘plastic parts coating.’’
46202 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 2, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Deletion of COMAR

26.11.19.11.B(1), referencing plastic

parts coating.

(4) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.11.B(1) & (3) through (6)

Applicability.

(5) Deletion of COMAR 26.11.19.11.C

Emission Standards for Plastic Coating.

(6) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.11.C Requirements for SheetFed Letter or Lithographic Printing.

(7) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.11.D Requirements for

Lithographic Web Printing.

(8) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.11.E Requirements for Cleaning

Printing Equipment.

(9) Deletion of COMAR 26.11.19.10

title, ‘‘Graphic Arts’’ and addition of

new title, ‘‘Flexographic and

Rotogravure Printing.’’

(10) Deletion of COMAR

26.11.19.10.A(4), definition for the term

‘‘web printing.’’

(11) Addition of COMAR

26.11.19.01.B(8), definition for the term

‘‘web printing.’’

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) Remainder of July 11, 1995

Maryland State submittal pertaining to

COMAR 26.11.19.11 Control of VOC

Emissions from Sheet-Fed and Web

Lithographic Printing.

(127) Revisions to the Maryland State

Implementation Plan submitted on July

11, 1995 by the Maryland Department of

the Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of July 11, 1995 from the

Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting additions to

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan,

pertaining to volatile organic compound

regulations in Maryland’s air quality

regulations, Code of Maryland

Administrative Regulations (COMAR)

26.11.

(B) Revision to COMAR 26.11.19.07

Control of VOC Emissions from Paper

Coating, adopted by the Secretary of the

Environment on May 5, 1995, and

effective on June 5, 1995, including the

following:

(1) Addition of COMAR

26.11.19.07.A(2–1), definition for the

term ‘‘plastic parts coating.’’

(2) Addition of COMAR

26.11.19.07.B(1), referencing paper,

fabric and vinyl coating.

(3) Addition of COMAR 26.11.19.07.E

Emission Standards for Plastic Coating.

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) Remainder of July 11, 1995

Maryland State submittal pertaining to

COMAR 26.11.19.07 Control of VOC

Emissions from Paper Coating.

[FR Doc. 97–23030 Filed 8–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–5883–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode

Island; Reasonably Available Control

Technology for Nitrogen Oxides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Rhode Island.

This revision establishes and requires

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) at stationary

sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX). The

intended effect of this action is to

approve regulatory provisions and

source specific consent agreements

which require major stationary sources

of NOX to reduce their emissions

statewide in accordance with

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This action is effective

November 3, 1997, unless adverse or

critical comments are submitted and

received by October 2, 1997. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, Office

of Ecosystem Protection (mail code

CAA), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building,

Boston, MA 02203–2211. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA; as well as the

Division of Air and Hazardous

Materials, Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management, 291

Promenade Street, Providence, RI

02908–5767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven A. Rapp, Environmental

Engineer, Air Quality Planning Unit

(CAQ), U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK Federal

Building, Boston, MA 02203–2211;

(617) 565–2773;

Rapp.Steve@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that

States develop Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) regulations

for all major stationary sources of

nitrogen oxides (NOX) in areas which

have been classified as ‘‘moderate,’’

‘‘serious,’’ ‘‘severe,’’ and ‘‘extreme’’

ozone nonattainment areas, and in all

areas of the Ozone Transport Region

(OTR). EPA has defined RACT as the

lowest emission limitation that a

particular source is capable of meeting

by the application of control technology

that is reasonably available considering

technological and economic feasibility

(44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979). This

requirement is established by sections

182(b)(2), 182(f), and 184(b) of the CAA.

The CAA NOX requirements are

further described by EPA in a notice

entitled ‘‘State Implementation Plans;

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the

General Preamble; Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ published

November 25, 1992 (57 FR 55620). The

November 25, 1992 document (i.e., the

NOX Supplement) should be referred to

for more detailed information on NOX

requirements. Additional guidance

memoranda which have been released

by EPA, such as those included in the

‘‘NOX Policy Document for the Clean

Air Act of 1990,’’ (EPA–452/R–96–005,

March 1996), should also be referred to

for more information on NOX

requirements.

CAA section 182(b)(2) requires States

to require implementation of RACT with

respect to all major sources of volatile

organic compounds (VOC) in moderate

ozone nonattainment areas. This RACT

requirement also applies to all major

sources in ozone nonattainment areas

with higher than moderate

nonattainment classifications (i.e.,

serious, severe, and extreme

nonattainment areas). See CAA sections

182 (c), (d), and (e). Furthermore, CAA

section 182(f) states that, ‘‘[t]he plan

provisions required under this subpart

for major stationary sources of volatile

organic compounds shall also apply to

major stationary sources (as defined in

section 302 of this title and subsections

(c), (d), and (e) of the section) of oxides

of nitrogen.’’ These sections of the CAA,

taken together, require the State of

Rhode Island, a serious nonattainment

area, to submit a NOX RACT regulation

which covers major sources of NOX

statewide.

Section 302 of the CAA generally

defines ‘‘major stationary source’’ as a

facility or source of air pollution which

has the potential to emit 100 tons per

year or more of air pollution. This

definition applies unless another

provision of the CAA explicitly defines

major stationary source differently.

Therefore, for NOX, a major source is

one with the potential to emit 100 tons

per year or more in marginal and