13564 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

business based on Small Business 

Administration size standards; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; or (3) a 

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, we believe that this action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The final rule is consistent with 

current agency practice, does not 

impose new substantive requirements, 

and therefore would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a final 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. We will submit a 

report containing this final rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This final 

rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 208 

Dams, Flood control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reservoirs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Corps amends 33 CFR 

part 208 as follows: 

PART 208—FLOOD CONTROL 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR 

part 208 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 7, 58 Stat. 890; 33 U.S.C. 

709. 

■ 2. Amend § 208.11(e) as follows: 

■ a. Revise the entry for ‘‘Marshall Ford 

Dam & Res’’ on the ‘‘List of Projects’’ 

table; and 

■ b. Revise footnote 4. 

§ 208.11 Regulations for use of storage 

allocated for flood control or navigation 

and/or project operation at reservoirs 

subject to prescription of rules and 

regulations by the Secretary of the Army in 

the interest of flood control and navigation. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

LIST OF PROJECTS

[Non-Corps projects with Corps Regulation Requirements] 

Project name 1

(1) 

State 

(2) 

County 

(3) 

Stream 1

(4) 

Project 

purpose 2

(5) 

Storage 

1000 AF 

(6) 

Elev limits feet M.S.L. Area in acres Authorizing 

legis.3

(11) 

Proj. 

owner 4

(12) Upper 

(7) 

Lower 

(8) 

Upper 

(9) 

Lower 

(10) 

*******

Marshall Ford Dam & Res ........... TX Travis ..... Colorado 

R.

F .............

NEIM ......

779.8 

810.5 

714.0 

681.0 

681.0 

618.0 

29060 

18955 

18955 

8050 

PL 73– 

392.

PL 78– 

534.

LCRA 

1 Cr—Creek; CS—Control Structure; Div—Diversion; DS—Drainage Structure; FG—Floodgate; Fk—Fork; GIWW—Gulf Intercoastal Waterway; Lk—Lake; L&D— 

Lock & Dam; PS—Pump Station; R—River; Res—Reservoir. 2F—Flood Control; N—Navigation; P—Corps Hydropower; E—Non Corps Hydropower; I—Irrigation; M—Municipal and/or Industrial Water Supply; C—Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation; A—Low Flow Augmentation or Pollution Abatement; R—Recreation; Q—Water Quality or Silt Control. 3FCA—Flood Control Act; FERC—Federal Energy Regulatory Comm; HD—House Document; PL—Public Law; PW—Public Works; RHA—River & Harbor Act; 

SD—Senate Document; WSA—Water Supply Act. 4Appl Pwr—Appalachian Power; Chln PUD—Chelan Cnty PUD 1; CLPC—CT Light & Power Co; Dgls PUD—Douglas Cnty PUD 1; DWR—Department of Water 

Resources; EB–MUD—East Bay Municipal Utility Dist; GRD—Grand River Dam Auth; Grnt PUD—Grant Cnty PUD 2; Hnbl—city of Hannibal; LCRA—Lower Colorado 

River Authority; M&T Irr—Modesto & Turlock Irr; Mrcd Irr—Merced Irr; NEPC—New England Power Co; Pgnt P&L—Pugent Sound Power & Light; Ptmc Comm— 

Upper Potomac R Comm; Rclm B—Reclamation Board; Rkfd—city of Rockford; Sttl—city of Seattle; Tac—City of Tacoma; Vale USBR—50% Vale Irr 50% USBR; 

WF&CWID—City of Wichita Falls and Wichita Cnty Water Improvement District No. 2; WMEC—Western MA Electric Co; YCWA—Yuba City Water Auth; Yolo 

FC&W—Yolo Flood Control & Water Conserv Dist. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 208.19 to read as follows: 

§ 208.19 Marshall Ford Dam and Reservoir 

(Mansfield Dam and Lake Travis), Colorado 

River, Texas. 

In the interest of flood control, the 

Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) 

shall operate the Marshall Ford Dam 

and Reservoir in accordance with the 

water control plan of regulation most 

recently approved by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE), effective 

on the date specified in the approval. 

Information regarding the most recently 

approved water control plan of 

regulation may be obtained by 

contacting the LCRA offices in Austin, 

Texas, or the offices of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth Engineer 

District, in Fort Worth, Texas. 

Dated March 6, 2014. 

Approved by: 

James C. Dalton, 

Chief of Engineering and Construction, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05252 Filed 3–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0778; FRL–9907–56– 

Region 9] 

Disapproval of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Clark County, Nevada 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing disapproval 

of revisions to the Clark County portion 

of the Nevada State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This action concerns 

affirmative defense provisions 

applicable to violations related to excess 

emissions from sources during 

equipment startup, shutdown and 

malfunction (SSM) events. Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act), this action identifies 

deficiencies with these provisions 

preventing EPA’s approval of them as 

SIP revisions. 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 10, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0778 for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 13565 

1Memorandum dated September 20, 1999, from 

Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, entitled ‘‘State Implementation 

Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown’’ (‘‘1999 

Policy’’). 2State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, February 22, 

2013 (78 FR 12460) (‘‘February 22, 2013 Proposed 

SSM SIP Calls’’); also EPA’s February 4, 2013 

Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Context 

Memorandum for the February 22, 2013 Proposed 

SSM SIP Calls. 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94015–3901. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 942– 

3248, Perez.Idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On December 10, 2013 (78 FR 74057), 

EPA proposed to disapprove the 

following section of the Clark County 

Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR) that 

was amended by the Clark County 

Board of Commissioners (CCBC) and 

submitted to EPA on behalf of the Clark 

County Department of Air Quality and 

Environmental Management (DAQEM) 

by the State of Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) for 

incorporation into the Nevada SIP. 

Local agency Regulation No. and title Amended Submitted 

DAQEM ................................. Section 25: Affirmative Defense for Excess Emissions 

Due to Malfunctions, Startups, and Shutdown.

May 18, 2010 ....................... September 1, 2010. 

We proposed to disapprove this SIP 

submission because some of the rule 

provisions do not satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of title I of the Act. These provisions 

include the following: 

1. Sections 25.1 and 25.3 are 

inconsistent with the requirements 

provided in CAA section 110(a) and 

conflict with the fundamental 

enforcement structure provided in CAA 

sections 113 and 304, because they 

create an affirmative defense to 

monetary penalties for violations due to 

excess emissions from sources during 

startup and shutdown events. EPA 

believes that providing an affirmative 

defense applicable to avoidable 

violations, such as those resulting from 

excess emissions during planned events 

such as startups and shutdowns that are 

within the source’s control, is 

inconsistent with the requirements 

provided in CAA section 110(a) and the 

fundamental enforcement structure 

provided in CAA sections 113 and 304, 

which provide for potential civil 

penalties for violations of SIP 

requirements. 

2. The criteria for qualifying for an 

affirmative defense to monetary 

penalties for violations due to excess 

emissions from sources during 

malfunction events in CCAQR Section 

25.2 are not fully consistent with CAA 

requirements. EPA has guidance making 

recommendations for criteria 

appropriate for affirmative defense 

provisions applicable in the case of 

malfunction events that would be 

consistent with the CAA. EPA’s 1999 

SSM Policy 1 and the February 22, 2013 

Proposed SSM SIP Call 2 lay out these 

criteria. These criteria are guidance and 

states do not need to track EPA’s 

recommended wording verbatim, but 

states should have SIP provisions that 

are consistent with these 

recommendations in order to assure that 

an affirmative defense for monetary 

penalties applicable in the case of 

malfunction events satisfies EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA requirements. 

EPA interprets the CAA to allow only 

narrowly drawn affirmative defense 

provisions. The affirmative defense 

criteria set forth in Section 25.2.1 are 

not sufficiently consistent with these 

recommended criteria for affirmative 

defense provisions in SIPs for 

malfunctions. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

submission. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received only one set of 

comments, from Laurie Williams, Sierra 

Club, letter dated January 9, 2014. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment #1: Sierra Club supports 

EPA’s proposal because the affirmative 

defenses provided in Clark County 

Section 25 ‘‘conflict with the CAA and 

EPA policy.’’ In particular, the 

commenter stated that EPA should not 

approve the SIP revision at issue 

because the Agency is required to 

disapprove any SIP revision that does 

not meet all applicable CAA 

requirements or that would interfere 

with any applicable CAA requirement. 

Response #1: EPA acknowledges the 

commenter’s support, in part, for the 

proposed action. EPA agrees that any 

SIP revision must be measured against 

the applicable substantive requirements 

of the CAA and the requirements of 

section 110(l) in particular. In this 

action, EPA has determined that 

Sections 25.1, 25.2, and 25.3 are 

inconsistent with the requirements 

provided in the CAA for the reasons 

explained in the proposed action. 

Comment #2: Sierra Club disagrees 

with EPA’s statements in the proposal 

that affirmative defenses for monetary 

penalties in the case of violations due to 

excess emissions during malfunctions 

may be consistent with the CAA if 

appropriately drawn. The commenter 

asserts that such affirmative defenses 

contravene the CAA ‘‘because they limit 

courts’ discretion to assess penalties for 

violations and prevent courts from 

considering statutory factors.’’ The 

commenter further argues that such 

affirmative defense provisions are 

inconsistent with the CAA requirement 

that SIP emission limits be 

‘‘continuous’’ and that such provisions 

‘‘critically disrupt the fundamental 

enforcement structure of the Act.’’ The 

commenter provides additional 

assertions to support this position and 

includes its comments on another EPA 

proposed rule related to affirmative 

defense provisions in Oklahoma. 

Response #2: EPA is disapproving the 

SIP revision with respect to CCAQR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

13566 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Section 25 for the reasons set forth in 

the proposal and summarized above. 

The commenter argues that EPA should 

identify additional reasons for 

disapproval, including an argument that 

CAA section 113 unequivocally 

precludes such affirmative defenses. As 

explained in the proposal, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow 

appropriately drawn affirmative 

defenses in SIP provisions in the case of 

violations due to excess emissions 

during malfunction events, if the 

affirmative defense is consistent with 

guidance recommendations for such 

provisions. However, EPA notes that it 

is not necessary to respond to the 

substance of this comment because our 

action would not change were we to 

include additional reasons for 

disapproval. EPA has concluded that 

the affirmative defense provisions both 

for malfunction events and for startup 

and shutdown events embodied in 

CCAQR Section 25 are not consistent 

with EPA’s interpretation of the CAA for 

such provisions for the reasons 

articulated in the proposal, regardless of 

the additional theories advanced by the 

commenter in this comment. 

In the event that DAQEM elects to 

respond to our disapproval action by 

revising and resubmitting CCAQR 

Section 25 to address the deficiencies 

we have identified in the current 

provisions, the commenter will then 

have an opportunity to pursue its 

argument that there are additional 

reasons for disapproval of the revised 

affirmative defense provisions. If that 

occurs in the future, EPA will evaluate 

the substance of the new SIP submission 

in light of the laws, policies, and other 

relevant circumstances in effect at that 

time. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of CCAQR 

Section 25 as described in our proposed 

action. Therefore, as authorized in 

section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is 

finalizing a disapproval of Section 25 as 

submitted. Affirmative defenses for 

excess emissions and other elements of 

Section 25 are not required by the Act, 

and the absence of affirmative defenses 

for excess emissions does not make a 

SIP deficient. Therefore, there are no 

sanction implications as described in 

CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31, and 

no Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

implications as described in CAA 

section 110(c) as a result of this 

disapproval. Note that the submitted 

Section 25 has been adopted locally by 

the DAQEM, and EPA’s final 

disapproval does not prevent sources 

from asserting an affirmative defense in 

state court. The state law affirmative 

defenses will not, however, be effective 

in the event of any action to enforce the 

requirements of the SIP pursuant to 

CAA section 304 or section 113. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP disapprovals under 

section 110 and title I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements but simply disapprove 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because EPA’s 

disapproval does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of 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). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 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 the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 disapproval 

action 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 

disapproves 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. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. This rule 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 13567 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

disapproves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. The EPA 

believes that VCS are inapplicable to 

this action. Today’s action does not 

require the public to perform activities 

conducive to the use of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 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 rule 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. section 804(2). This 

rule will be effective April 10, 2014. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 12, 2014. 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 24, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations 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 DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1483 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1483 Malfunction regulations. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Section 25, ‘‘Affirmative Defense 

for Excess Emissions Due to 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,’’ 

submitted by the Governor on 

September 1, 2010. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05106 Filed 3–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

48 CFR Part 1052 

RIN 1505–AC41 

Department of the Treasury 

Acquisition Regulation; Internet 

Payment Platform; Technical 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Office of the Procurement 

Executive, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2012, the 

Department of the Treasury amended 

the Department of the Treasury 

Acquisition Regulation (DTAR) to 

implement use of the Internet Payment 

Platform, a centralized electronic 

invoicing and payment information 

system, and to change the definition of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES