8406 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA has previously taken rulemaking action on 

the June 6, 2014 SIP revision to address all other 

applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2010 

government vehicles for transporting 

employees between their domiciles and 

places of employment is prohibited 

except when authorized by the 

Secretary pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1344 or 

other statute. 

§ 0.213 Government issued charge cards. 

(a) Employees shall not make 

improper purchases with government 

contractor-issued charge cards. 

(b) Employees shall timely pay 

undisputed amounts owed on 

government contractor-issued travel 

charge cards. 

§ 0.214 Conduct while on government 

property. 

(a) Employees must adhere to the 

regulations that govern the conduct of 

individuals who are in the buildings or 

space occupied by, or on grounds of, 

particular government property. 

(b) Employees shall not solicit, make 

collections, canvass for the sale of any 

article, or distribute literature or 

advertising on Department property 

without appropriate authorization. 

§ 0.215 Recording government business. 

An employee shall not electronically 

transmit, or create audio or video 

recordings of, conversations, meetings, 

or conferences in the workplace or 

while conducting business on behalf of 

the Department, except where doing so 

is part of the employee’s official duties. 

§ 0.216 Influencing legislation or 

petitioning Congress. 

Except for the official handling, 

through the proper channels, of matters 

relating to legislation in which the 

Department has an interest, employees 

shall not use government time, money, 

or property to petition a Member of 

Congress to favor or oppose any 

legislation or proposed legislation, or to 

encourage others to do so. 

§ 0.217 Nondiscrimination. 

(a) Employees shall not discriminate 

against or harass any other employee, 

applicant for employment, contractor, or 

person dealing with the Department on 

official business on the basis of race, 

color, religion, national origin, sex, 

sexual orientation, age, disability, 

political affiliation, marital status, 

parental status, veterans status, or 

genetic information. 

(b) Supervisors shall not retaliate 

against an employee for complaining 

about suspected unlawful 

discrimination or harassment, seeking 

accommodation for a disability, or 

otherwise exercising their right to be 

free from unlawful discrimination. 

(c) An employee who engages in 

discriminatory or retaliatory conduct 

may be disciplined under these 

regulations, as well as other applicable 

laws. However, this section does not 

create any enforceable legal rights in 

any person. 

§ 0.218 General conduct prejudicial to the 

government. 

An employee shall not engage in 

criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, 

or notoriously disgraceful conduct, or 

other conduct prejudicial to the 

government. 

Dated: February 12, 2016. 

Brodi Fontenot, 

Assistant Secretary for Management. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03410 Filed 2–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0750; FRL–9942–58– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Interstate Pollution 

Transport Requirements for the 2010 

Nitrogen Dioxide Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the District of Columbia 

(the District). This revision pertains to 

the infrastructure requirement of 

interstate transport pollution with 

respect to the 2010 nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving 

this revision in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0750. 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 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 District of Columbia 

Department of Energy and Environment, 

Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street 

NE., 5th floor, Washington, DC 20002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Whenever new or revised NAAQS are 

promulgated, the CAA requires states to 

submit a plan for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of such 

NAAQS. The plan is required to address 

basic program elements, including, but 

not limited to, regulatory structure, 

monitoring, modeling, legal authority, 

and adequate resources necessary to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards. These elements are 

referred to as infrastructure 

requirements and are specified in 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. 

Particularly, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of 

the CAA requires state SIPs to address 

any emissions activity in one state that 

contributes significantly to 

nonattainment, or interferes with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in any 

downwind state. EPA sometimes refers 

to these requirements as prong 1 

(significant contribution to 

nonattainment) and prong 2 

(interference with maintenance), or 

conjointly as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision of the CAA. 

On December 4, 2015 (80 FR 75845), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the District. In the 

NPR, EPA proposed approval of a SIP 

revision by the District addressing 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The formal SIP 

revision was submitted by the District 

on June 6, 2014. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The District submitted on June 6, 

2014 a SIP revision to satisfy the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that pertains to 

interstate transport. This rulemaking 

action is addressing the portions of the 

District’s June 6, 2014 infrastructure 

submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS that 

pertain to transport requirements.1


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 8407 

NO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the transport 

elements in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 80 FR 19538 

(April 13, 2015). 

The District’s June 6, 2014 transport 

submittal concludes that the District 

does not have sources that can 

contribute to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state with respect to the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. A detailed summary of EPA’s 

review and rationale for proposing 

approval of this SIP revision as meeting 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS may be found in 

the NPR and the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for this rulemaking 

action and will not be restated here. 

Both the NPR and TSD are available 

online at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

number EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0750. No 

public adverse comments were received 

on the NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the portions of the 

District’s June 6, 2014 SIP revision 

submittal addressing interstate transport 

for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS as a revision 

to the District SIP for purposes of 

meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

requirements with respect to this 

NAAQS. 

IV. 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 (Publ. 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). 

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 April 19, 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, 

addressing the District’s interstate 

transport requirements under the CAA 

for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide. 

Dated: February 4, 2016. 

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 J—District of Columbia 

■ 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘Interstate Pollution Transport 

Requirements for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS’’ to the end of the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8408 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 33 / Friday, February 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Interstate Pollution Transport 

Requirements for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS.

Statewide ............................... 6/6/14 2/19/16 [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the infrastructure element of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), or 

the good neighbor provision, for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03394 Filed 2–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0092; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AY77 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassifying 

Hesperocyparis abramsiana 

(=Cupressus abramsiana) as 

Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

threatened species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for Hesperocyparis 

abramsiana (=Cupressus abramsiana) 

(Santa Cruz cypress), a plant species 

found in Santa Cruz and San Mateo 

Counties in west-central California. We 

also finalize the correction to the 

scientific name of Santa Cruz cypress on 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. The effect of this regulation will 

be to change the listing status of Santa 

Cruz cypress from an endangered 

species to a threatened species on the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Plants. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

March 21, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R8–ES–2013–0092 and at http://

www.fws.gov/ventura/. Comments and 

materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov. All of the 

comments, materials, and 

documentation that we considered in 

this rulemaking are available by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 

Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, 

California 93003; telephone 805–644– 

1766; facsimile 805–644–3958. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola 

Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003; 

telephone 805–644–1766; facsimile 

805–644–3958. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Action 

On September 3, 2013, we proposed 

to reclassify the Santa Cruz cypress from 

an endangered species to a threatened 

species (78 FR 54221) on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Plants in 

part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). Please refer to the 

proposed reclassification rule for the 

Santa Cruz cypress (78 FR 54221; 

September 3, 2013) for a detailed 

description of the previous Federal 

actions concerning this species. This 

final rule constitutes our final action 

regarding the petition to reclassify the 

Santa Cruz cypress from endangered to 

threatened (Pacific Legal Foundation 

2011, pp. 1–11). 

Background 

For a detailed discussion of Santa 

Cruz cypress’s description, taxonomy, 

life history, habitat, soils, distribution, 

abundance, age and size distribution, 

and role of fire in regeneration, please 

see the Santa Cruz Cypress 

Hesperocyparis [Cupressus] abramsiana 

Species Report (Service 2015, pp. 1–57) 

(Species Report), which is available for 

review under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES– 

2013–0092 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Please refer to the 

proposed reclassification rule for the 

Santa Cruz cypress (78 FR 54221; 

September 3, 2013) (Service 2013b) for 

a summary of information about the 

species and the proposed change in 

taxonomy: In this final rule, we replace 

the entry for Cupressus abramsiana 

from 50 CFR 17.12(h) with an entry for 

Hesperocyparis abramsiana. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Factors Affecting the Species 

This section introduces and 

summarizes the biological status and 

factors affecting Santa Cruz cypress 

identified at each period of the species’ 

review history. We have described the 

level of threats using a scale of low, 

moderate, and high (as discussed in 

Appendix 1 of the Species Report). A 

low-level threat indicates a threat that 

has the potential to occur at any time, 

although the possibility is unlikely that 

this threat will affect the species across 

its range or interrupt the species’ 

persistence into the future. A moderatelevel threat indicates a threat that is 

currently affecting the long-term 

persistence of the species in a particular 

population or across its range, but does 

not pose an imminent threat to the 

persistence of the species. A high-level 

threat indicates a well-documented, 

imminent threat to a large number of 

individuals that has the potential to 

disrupt the long-term persistence of the 

species in a particular population or 

across its range. 

At the time of listing, the primary 

threats to Santa Cruz cypress were 

residential development, agricultural 

conversion, logging, oil and gas drilling, 

genetic introgression, and alteration of 

the natural frequency of fires that 

threatened to destroy portions of each 

population (52 FR 675; January 8, 1987). 

Other (secondary) threats in 1987 

included vandalism, disease, and 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms (52 

FR 675). Of the primary threats in 1987, 

residential development, agricultural 

conversion, and logging threatened 

individual Santa Cruz cypress trees and 

stands with imminent destruction. 

Other threats identified in the Recovery 

Plan for the Santa Cruz Cypress (Service 

1998) also included oil and gas 

development, reproductive isolation, 

introgression, and competition from 

nonnative species. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES