59622 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves the establishment of a safety 

zone. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is amending 

33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 

■ 2. A new temporary § 165.T08–0872 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 165.T08–0872 Natchez Fireworks Safety 

Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Marker 

365.5 to Mile Marker 363, Natchez, MS 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: those waters of the Lower 

Mississippi River, beginning at mile 

marker 363 and ending at mile marker 

365.5, extending the entire width of the 

river. 

(b) Effective dates. This section is 

effective from 8 p.m. through 8:30 p.m., 

local time, on September 28, 2010. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations of this part, entry 

into this zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Lower Mississippi River or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage through the zone must 

request permission from the Captain of 

the Port Lower Mississippi River or a 

designated representative. They may be 

contacted on VHF–FM channels 16 or 

by telephone at (901) 521–4822. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Lower Mississippi 

River and designated personnel. 

Designated personnel include 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

(d) Informational Broadcasts: The 

Captain of the Port, Lower Mississippi 

River will inform the public when safety 

zones have been established via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 

Dated: September 16, 2010. 

Michael Gardiner, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Lower Mississippi River. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24237 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0133; FRL–9207–1] 

RIN 2060–AQ35 

Supplemental Determination for 

Renewable Fuels Produced Under the 

Final RFS2 Program From Canola Oil 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 26, 2010, the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

published final changes to the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

program as required by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) 

of 2007. In the preamble to the final 

rule, EPA indicated that it had not 

completed the lifecycle greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions impact analysis for 

several specific biofuel production 

pathways but that this work would be 

completed through a supplemental final 

rulemaking process. This supplemental 

final rule describes a final GHG analysis 

for canola oil biodiesel. It also finalizes 

our regulatory determination that canola 

oil biodiesel meets the biomass-based 

diesel and advanced biofuel GHG 

reduction thresholds of 50% as 

compared to the baseline petroleum fuel 

it will replace, petroleum diesel. This 

final rules will allow producers or 

importers of canola oil biodiesel fuel to 

generate biomass-based diesel 

Renewable Identification Numbers 

(RINs), providing that the fuel meets 

other definitional criteria for renewable 

fuel (e.g., produced from renewable 

biomass as defined in the RFS2 

regulations, and used to reduce or 

replace petroleum-based transportation 

fuel, heating oil or jet fuel). In addition, 

this rule includes a new regulatory 

provision establishing a temporary and 

limited means for producers or 

importers of canola oil biodiesel to 

generate RINs for qualifying biofuel 

produced or imported between July 1, 

2010, and the effective date of this rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0133. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Air and Radiation Docket 

and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Wu, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, Transportation and Climate 

Division, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 

734–214–4923; fax number: 734–214– 

4958; e-mail address: wu.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 59623 

1 75 FR 42238. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action are those involved with the 

production, distribution, and sale of 

transportation fuels, including gasoline 

and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such 

as ethanol and biodiesel. Regulated 

categories include: 

Category NAICS1 codes SIC 2 codes Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry .......................................... 324110 2911 Petroleum Refineries. 

Industry .......................................... 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing. 

Industry .......................................... 325199 2869 Other basic organic chemical manufacturing. 

Industry .......................................... 424690 5169 Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry .......................................... 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals Chemical and allied products 

merchant wholesalers. 

Industry .......................................... 424720 5172 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry .......................................... 454319 5989 Other fuel dealers. 

1 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

2Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by the RFS2 program. This 

table lists the types of entities that EPA 

is now aware of that could potentially 

be regulated under the program. To 

determine whether your activities 

would be regulated, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR part 80, Subpart M. 

If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding section. 

Outline of This Preamble 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for Canola Oil Biodiesel 

A. Methodology and Key Assumptions 

1. Models 

2. Scenarios Modeled 

3. Year of Analysis 

4. Biodiesel Processing Assumptions 

5. Other Assumptions 

B. Threshold Determination and 

Assignment of Pathways 

III. Delayed RIN Generation for New 

Pathways 

IV. Public Participation 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

VI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority 

I. Executive Summary 

On March 26, 2010, the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

published final changes to the 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 

program as required by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) 

of 2007. EISA increased the volume of 

renewable fuel required to be blended 

into transportation fuel to 36 billion 

gallons by 2022. Furthermore, the Act 

established new eligibility requirements 

for four categories of renewable fuel, 

each with their own annual volume 

mandates. The eligibility requirements 

include minimum lifecycle greenhouse 

gas (GHG) reduction thresholds for each 

category of renewable fuel. EPA 

conducted lifecycle GHG analyses for a 

number of biofuel feedstocks and 

production pathways for the final rule. 

In the preamble to that final rule, EPA 

indicated that it had not completed the 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 

impact analysis for certain biofuel 

production pathways but that this work 

would be completed through a 

supplemental final rulemaking process. 

This supplemental final rule describes a 

final GHG analysis for canola oil 

biodiesel. It also finalizes our regulatory 

determination that canola oil biodiesel 

qualifies as biomass-based biodiesel and 

advanced biofuel under RFS2 regulatory 

provisions, providing that the fuel meets 

other definitional criteria for renewable 

fuel (e.g., produced from renewable 

biomass as defined in the RFS2 

regulations, and used to reduce or 

replace petroleum-based transportation 

fuel, heating oil or jet fuel). EPA 

currently intends to issue additional 

supplemental final rules to address 

other biofuel production pathways, 

including those involving palm oil, 

woody biomass and sorghum. 

We issued a notice of data availability 

(NODA) on July 26, 2010 which 

described the methodology and 

modeling assumptions, and proposed 

lifecycle GHG assessment, for canola oil 

biodiesel. EPA provided a 30-day public 

comment period on the NODA. In 

addition, we sought input from several 

stakeholders during the development of 

this rule and have worked closely with 

other Federal agencies, in particular the 

U.S. Departments of Energy and 

Agriculture. In general, the public 

comments received supported our 

proposed lifecycle analysis, and we are 

finalizing the proposal without 

modification. 

The agency continues to recognize 

that lifecycle GHG assessment of 

biofuels is an evolving discipline. As we 

noted in the final RFS2 rule, EPA will 

revisit our lifecycle analyses in the 

future as new information becomes 

available. In addition, EPA is moving 

forward with plans to ask the National 

Academy of Sciences to make 

recommendations for these future 

lifecycle GHG assessments. This current 

canola analysis and subsequent 

supplemental analysis being conducted 

will continue to use the same lifecycle 

modeling approach as used for the RFS2 

final rule and will be revisited along 

with other fuels as part of any future 

lifecycle updates as appropriate. 

In addition, on July 20, 2010, EPA 

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) for the 2011 renewable fuel 

standards.1 This NPRM included a 

proposed provision to allow the 

temporary and limited generation of 

‘‘delayed RINs’’ by renewable fuel 

producers using fuel production 

pathways approved for RIN generation 

on or after July 1, 2010 and before 

January 1, 2011. Under the proposal, 

delayed RINs could be generated after 

the effective date of a rule adding a new 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

59624 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2See comments EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0133–0079 

(Embassy of Canada), EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0133– 

0080 (Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance), EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0133–0082 (Washington State 

Department of Commerce), EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0133–0083 (U.S. Canola Association). 

3See Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) 

Summary and Analysis of Comments, EPA–420–R– 

10–003, February 2010, see page 7–18, 7–19 & 7– 

31. Also, see preamble to final RFS2 rule in Chapter 

V. Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 

pathway to Table 1 to § 80.1426 for 

qualifying fuel produced between July 

1, 2010 and the effective date of that 

rule, even if the fuel had been 

transferred to another party. In addition, 

the proposed rule included provisions 

allowing fuel producers who are 

grandfathered under the provisions of 

§ 80.1403 to exchange higher-value 

delayed RINs for RINs generated under 

the grandfathering provisions that have 

a D code of 6. We are finalizing this 

provision in today’s rule. Since the only 

pathway we are approving in today’s 

action is biodiesel and renewable diesel 

produced from canola oil, the delayed 

RINs provision will only be applicable 

to this pathway. 

Today’s rule does not add significant 

environmental or economic impacts 

beyond those already addressed in the 

final RFS2 rule published on March 26, 

2010. The new delayed RINs provision 

provides additional flexibility to certain 

biofuel producers, and the new canola 

oil biodiesel pathway provides an 

additional basis for biofuel producers to 

generate RINs. Today’s actions will not 

increase overall burdens on any 

regulatory party and will impose no 

additional costs. 

II. Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions for Canola Oil Biodiesel 

A. Methodology and Key Assumptions 

EISA establishes specific lifecycle 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

reduction thresholds for each of four 

categories of renewable fuels (i.e., 60% 

for cellulosic biofuel, 50% for biomassbased diesel and advanced biofuel, and 

20% for other renewable fuels). EPA 

employed the methodology described in 

the RFS2 final rule (published March 

26, 2010) to analyze the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of the canola oil biodiesel 

pathway, as described in the NODA 

issued on May 26, 2010. This section 

briefly describes the methodological 

approach as well as the key assumptions 

that were used in the lifecycle modeling 

of canola oil biodiesel. 

The public comments received on the 

canola oil biodiesel NODA generally 

supported our proposed lifecycle GHG 

analysis. For instance, several 

commenters stated that they support the 

determination that canola oil biodiesel 

meets or exceeds the 50% biomassbased diesel lifecycle GHG reduction 

requirement and requested that EPA 

formally approve canola for RIN 

generation as expeditiously as possible.2

Responses to comments that were 

critical of certain elements of the 

proposal are included in the following 

sections. EPA has decided to finalize the 

proposed lifecycle GHG assessment for 

canola oil biodiesel without 

modification. 

1. Models 

The analysis EPA has prepared for 

canola oil biodiesel uses the same set of 

models that was used for the final RFS2 

rule, including the Forestry and 

Agricultural Sector Optimization Model 

(FASOM) developed by Texas A&M 

University and others and the Food and 

Agricultural Policy and Research 

Institute international models as 

maintained by the Center for 

Agricultural and Rural Development 

(FAPRI–CARD) at Iowa State University. 

The models require a number of inputs 

that are specific to the pathway being 

analyzed, for example, inputs include 

projected yield of feedstock per acre 

planted, projected fertilizer use, energy 

use in feedstock processing and energy 

use in fuel production. The docket 

includes detailed information on model 

inputs, assumptions, calculations, and 

the results of our modeling for canola 

oil biodiesel. 

2. Volume Scenarios Modeled 

The RFS2 final rulemaking 

established reference and control cases 

to assess the impacts of an increase in 

renewable fuel volume from businessas-usual. That is, EPA compared what is 

likely to have occurred without EISA to 

the increased volume necessary to meet 

the EISA mandates. For the canola 

biodiesel assessment, we determined 

that an incremental impact of an 

increase of 200 million gallons of 

biodiesel from canola per year in 2022 

was an appropriate volume to model. 

This assumed a 2022 reference case of 

zero canola oil biodiesel volume and a 

2022 control case of 200 million gallons 

canola oil biodiesel volume. For more 

detail on our rationale for volumes 

modeled (which were based in part on 

consultation with USDA experts and 

industry representatives) please refer to 

the inputs and assumptions document 

that is available through the docket. We 

did not receive any comments on our 

proposed use of this volume scenario 

and are therefore using the same volume 

scenario for our final modeling. 

3. Year of Analysis 

We received a comment disagreeing 

with our proposal to use the year 2022 

to model and evaluate GHG emissions 

associated with canola oil biodiesel, as 

we had done for other biofuels in the 

RFS2 final rule. The commenter stated 

that use of 2022 is inappropriate since 

that is ‘‘the year that the RFS ends’’ and 

that GHGs are emitted in the present as 

the feedstock and fuel is produced and 

combusted. The commenter suggested 

that EPA instead use a year for its 

analyses that better reflects the ‘‘average 

performance of the RFS,’’ such as 2012, 

with a commitment to update the 

analysis regularly to reflect documented 

changes in technologies and practices, 

as well as better information on trends 

in land use and associated emissions. 

In response, EPA first notes that the 

commenter is incorrect in assuming that 

the RFS program ends in 2022. That is 

the year when the full 36 billion gallons 

specifically required by EISA is to be 

used, but EPA is directed to set 

renewable fuel volume requirements, 

and implement associated percentages 

standards, indefinitely into the future 

after 2022. Thus, no single year can 

reasonably be assumed to reflect an 

‘‘average performance’’ of a fuel under 

the RFS program. 

As described in our final RFS2 rule, 

there were two main reasons for our 

focus on 2022.3 The first reason is that 

it is appropriate to select a single year 

to analyze. The lifecycle GHG analysis 

is based on the use of various economic 

models, both domestic and 

international. These models estimate 

economic impacts on relevant sectors 

over a multi-year time period, and rely 

on assumptions or projections as to the 

various biofuel volumes out into the 

future. The results are dependent in part 

on the biofuel volumes that are used, 

and the modeling requires a stable 

prediction of the specific volumes and 

types of fuels used from year to year. 

This reflects the current status of the 

models available to perform this 

analysis. If there were changes in 

volumes in interim years in the 

modeling, this would have impacts on 

the later years of the modeling. The lack 

of a stable projection or assumption in 

the year to year fuel volumes would 

make it impossible to accurately model 

the predicted lifecycle GHG reductions 

for the different fuels. Analytically it 

would not be possible to model in 

advance the GHG impacts and make 

lifecycle determinations on biofuels for 

different years over the life of the 

program. 

Thus it would not be possible using 

our current methodology to use more 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 59625 

than one year to determine the life-cycle 

assessment, as recommended by the 

commenter. They recommend that we 

assess biofuel GHG performance early in 

the RFS2 implementation schedule, 

using a year such as 2012 as the year, 

and then make periodic GHG impact 

reassessments prior to 2022 with 

threshold determinations on the basis of 

these reassessments. However, if a 

biofuel met a certain GHG performance 

threshold in some years while not in 

others, this would affect the volumes of 

different types of fuels produced to meet 

RFS2 requirements. A change in a 

threshold determination would lead to 

changes in investments and in the 

market, producing a new mix of biofuels 

that we are not able to predict and use 

in the lifecycle modeling. This use of 

more than one year can lead to changes 

in the interim years’ biofuel volumes 

that we are not in a position to model 

or project. Based on the inability to 

determine the impact of these iterative 

changes in the market resulting from 

changes in the GHG threshold decision 

over time, we would be unable to 

develop a valid year by year projection 

of biofuel volumes for the subsequent 

lifecycle modeling. EPA is also 

concerned that this approach would 

produce significantly increased 

uncertainty in the biofuels industry and 

could affect investment decisions and 

thus the ability of the industry to 

produce sufficient complying biofuels to 

meet the goals of EISA. This increased 

uncertainty about future decisions is not 

warranted in a situation where the 

modeling tools available to the agency 

could not be used to produce consistent 

results over multiple years when biofuel 

volume predictions are not stable due to 

changing threshold determinations from 

year to year. As such, EPA’s position is 

that it is more appropriate to rely on 

modeling centered on a single year. 

The second reason to focus on 2022, 

the final year of ramp up in the required 

volumes of renewable fuel, is that 

modeling that uses the year 2022 allows 

the total fuel volumes specified in EISA 

to be incorporated into the analysis. 

Modeling an early year such as 2012 

would result in almost all of the volume 

being made up of traditional biofuels 

such as ethanol from corn or biodiesel 

from soy. We note also that much of the 

2012 production capacity is already in 

place and thus allowed to meet the 

overall renewable fuel standard under 

its grandfathering provisions (for which 

no GHG assessment if required). We are 

more interested in modeling the GHG 

performance of future production 

capacity likely to come on board after 

2012. Additionally, assessment of the 

impact of biofuels on land use in an 

early year such as 2012 would 

underestimate the full land use impact 

of the greater biofuel volumes required 

in later years. Additionally, such an 

early assessment would not reflect the 

anticipated technology changes and 

expanded use of valuable co-products 

such as DGS. In this way, an early 

analysis would give a false picture of 

the anticipated emission reductions 

from individual biofuels. In contrast, 

EPA feels that the 2022 analysis 

represents an appropriate estimate of 

GHG impacts as it represents the full 

adoption of statutorily-prescribed 

biofuel volumes and thus their 

feedstock demand on land use and 

otherwise appropriately assesses the 

GHG impacts of the program when fully 

implemented. An earlier assessment 

year would underestimate the full 

volumes required by EISA and therefore 

not appropriately account for the full 

impact of the program. Furthermore, we 

note that the RFS2 requirements do not 

end in 2022, rather it would continue in 

years to follow. Since trends which 

might impact a 2022 assessment 

compared to earlier years such as 

improvements in crop yield or 

production technology would be 

expected to continue after 2022, 

selecting 2022 as a preferred year of 

assessment represents a more reasonable 

single year for assessment of the 

expected GHG performance of a biofuel 

during the RFS2 program than an 

assessment early in the program such as 

2012. Finally, a 2022 assessment for 

canola oil biodiesel is consistent with 

the 2022 assessments for all other 

biofuel pathways adopted in RFS2. EPA 

believes that it is best to use similar 

assessment techniques across all biofuel 

pathways. 

4. Biodiesel Processing Assumptions 

We analyzed the lifecycle GHG 

emission impacts of producing biodiesel 

using canola oil as a feedstock assuming 

the same biodiesel production facility 

designs and conversion efficiencies as 

modeled for biodiesel produced from 

soybean oil. Canola oil biodiesel is 

produced using the same methods as 

soybean oil biodiesel, therefore plant 

designs are assumed to not significantly 

differ between these two feedstocks. As 

was the case for soybean oil biodiesel, 

production technology for canola oil 

biodiesel is mature and we have not 

projected in our assessment of canola oil 

biodiesel any significant improvements 

in plant technology. Unanticipated 

energy saving improvements would 

further improve GHG performance of 

the fuel pathway. Refer to the docket for 

more details on these model inputs and 

assumptions. The inputs and 

assumptions are based on our 

understanding of the industry, analysis 

of relevant literature, public comments, 

and recommendations of experts within 

the canola and biodiesel industries and 

those from USDA as well as the experts 

at Texas A&M and Iowa State 

Universities who have designed the 

FASOM and FAPRI models. 

The glycerin produced from canola oil 

biodiesel production is equivalent to the 

glycerin produced from the existing 

biodiesel pathways (based on soy oil, 

etc.) that were analyzed as part of the 

RFS2 final rule. Therefore the same 

assumptions and co-product credit was 

applied to canola oil biodiesel as was 

used for the biodiesel pathways 

modeled for the RFS2 final rule. The 

assumption is that the GHG reductions 

associated with the replacement of 

residual oil on an energy equivalent 

basis represents an appropriate midrange co-product credit of biodiesel 

produced glycerin. The U.S. Canola 

Association supported this approach in 

its comments, stating that ‘‘EPA properly 

considered glycerin as a co-product, and 

conservatively assumed that the 

glycerin would be used as a fuel source 

in place of residual oil.’’ However, we 

also received comments that this 

approach overestimates the GHG 

reduction benefits of glycerin coproduct because the glycerin would 

actually replace less than an energy 

equivalent amount of residual oil. The 

commenter, Clean Air Task Force 

(CATF), makes the argument that while 

the glycerin use would lower the 

demand for residual oil, it would also 

reduce the price of residual oil fuel, and 

this lowered price would increase 

somewhat the demand and use of 

residual oil above the levels we 

assumed in our analysis. According to 

the commenter, this assumed rebound 

effect should decrease the credit we 

provide in our analysis for biodieselproduced glycerin. 

EPA feels that the proposed approach, 

which it is finalizing today, provides an 

appropriate estimate of credit for the 

glycerin co-product produced from the 

canola biodiesel pathway. As part of our 

RFS2 proposal we assumed the glycerin 

would have no value and would 

effectively receive no co-product credits 

in the soy biodiesel pathway. We 

received numerous comments, however, 

as part of the RFS2 final rule stating that 

the glycerin would have a beneficial use 

and should generate co-product 

benefits. Therefore, the biodiesel 

glycerin co-product determination made 

as part of the RFS2 final rule took into 

consideration the possible range of coproduct credit results. The actual coWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

59626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

product benefit will be based on what 

products are replaced by the glycerin, or 

what new uses the co-product glycerin 

is applied to. The total amount of 

glycerin produced from the biodiesel 

industry will actually be used across a 

number of different markets with 

different GHG impacts. This could 

include for example, replacing 

petroleum glycerin, replacing fuel 

products (residual oil, diesel fuel, 

natural gas, etc.), or being used in new 

products that don’t have a direct 

replacement, but may nevertheless have 

indirect effects on the extent to which 

existing competing products are used. 

The more immediate GHG reductions 

from glycerin co-product use will likely 

range from fairly high reductions when 

petroleum glycerin is replaced to lower 

reduction credits if it is used in new 

markets that have no direct replacement 

product, and therefore no replaced 

emissions. EPA does not have sufficient 

information (and the commenter 

supplied none) on which to allocate 

glycerin use across the range of likely 

uses. Also, if additional residual oil is 

used as predicted by the commenter, its 

use would presumably replace some 

other product (e.g., perhaps replacing 

coal in some cases) which would also 

have a secondary GHG impact which 

could be in a positive direction (i.e., a 

lowering of GHG emissions). Again, 

EPA does not have sufficient 

information on which to base such 

market movements and their GHG 

impact. Therefore, EPA believes that its 

proposed approach of picking a 

surrogate use for modeling purposes in 

the mid-range of likely glycerin uses, 

and focusing on the more immediate 

GHG emissions results tied to such use, 

is reasonable. The replacement of an 

energy equivalent amount of residual oil 

is a simplifying assumption determined 

by EPA to reflect the mid-range of 

possible glycerin uses in terms of GHG 

credits, and EPA believes that it is 

appropriately representative of GHG 

reduction credit across the possible 

range without necessarily biasing the 

results toward high or low GHG impact. 

EPA feels that the comments from the 

CATF do not change the 

appropriateness of using at this time an 

assumption of residual oil replaced on 

an energy equivalent basis (without any 

adjustment for possible global rebound 

effect) as a representative biodiesel 

glycerin co-product credit. Since we are 

not actually assuming all of the 

biodiesel glycerin produced replaces 

residual oil (it will likely replace a mix 

of products with a range of GHG 

impacts but residual oil is used as the 

representative GHG reduction credit), 

any potential rebound impact in the 

residual oil market would not occur to 

the extent described in the CATF 

comment as they assumed the total 

amount of glycerin would be used as a 

residual oil replacement. Furthermore, 

while including rebound effects and 

other indirect impacts for residual oil 

that is replaced by biodiesel co-product 

glycerin could possibly lower reduction 

credits, that would not be true for all 

replacement products. For example, 

including indirect impacts for glycerin 

that is used in new markets could tend 

to increase estimated emission 

reductions. Without indirect impacts 

the co-product assessment for glycerin 

used in new markets would assume that 

it did not have a replacement value and 

would therefore generate no credits. If 

indirect impacts were taken into 

account it could be that the new 

products would actually have impacts 

in other markets that were not direct 

replacements but generate GHG benefits. 

Given the varying impacts of including 

the type of factors CATF mentions in 

their comments would have across the 

full range of possible glycerin 

replacements, and the fundamental 

difficulty of predicting possible glycerin 

uses and impacts of those uses many 

years into the future under different 

market conditions, EPA believes it is 

reasonable to finalize its more 

simplified approach to calculating coproduct GHG benefit associated with 

glycerin production. 

5. Other Assumptions 

We received comments from the U.S. 

Canola Association supported by the 

State of Washington Department of 

Commerce that the GHG impacts of 

canola oil biodiesel as proposed in our 

Notice of Data Availability 

overestimated the GHG emissions of 

canola production and therefore canola 

oil biodiesel has a greater than 50% 

lifecycle GHG reduction compared to 

the baseline petroleum diesel fuel 

baseline. The U.S. Canola Association 

plans to submit more detailed technical 

analysis to EPA for consideration in any 

updated analysis of canola oil biodiesel. 

Because comments suggesting that EPA 

overestimated lifecycle GHG emissions 

from canola oil biodiesel do not impact 

today’s regulatory determination that 

canola oil biodiesel achieves at least a 

50% lifecycle GHG reduction, and 

because those who submitted such 

comments have asked that EPA expedite 

its qualification action for canola oil 

biodiesel under RFS2, we believe it is 

most appropriate that EPA consider 

these comments in detail at such time 

as we prepare an updated analysis of 

canola oil biodiesel. We worked closely 

with the canola industry on the lifecycle 

analysis performed for this rulemaking 

and will continue to work with them on 

any future analysis. The state of 

Washington specifically referenced a 

concern with the diesel fuel 

consumption rate in our analysis. The 

concern is that the total change in diesel 

use divided by the total acreage change 

across the entire U.S. agricultural sector 

as a result of an increase in canola oil 

biodiesel production results in a diesel 

use figure that is higher than the rate of 

diesel fuel used to produce canola. The 

commenter indicates that this appears to 

represent an error in the EPA lifecycle 

analysis. EPA disagrees that this 

represents an error in the modeling. As 

mandated by EISA, and as was done for 

the other biofuels analyzed as part of the 

RFS2 final rule, EPA’s lifecycle analysis 

takes into account the full direct as well 

as significant indirect impacts of canola 

oil biodiesel production. As described 

in the RFS2 final rulemaking, this 

means that for the agricultural sector we 

consider the full impacts across the 

entire sector due to canola oil biodiesel 

production including not only the 

impacts on canola acres and diesel fuel 

input, but also the impacts of crop 

shifting and changes in livestock 

production with associated impacts on 

feed crops and other crop production 

with associated diesel fuel use. 

Therefore the diesel fuel use figure that 

the state of Washington cites does not 

represent just the change from canola 

acres but shifts in all crop acres across 

all regions as described in the 

agricultural sector model results 

included in the docket to this 

rulemaking. The shifts of all these 

different crop acres with associated 

diesel fuel use results in the correct 

diesel use figure used by EPA. 

The state of Washington also has 

comments specifically referencing 

regional data on canola production that 

is not reflective of the national and 

international analysis that EPA 

performed for canola oil biodiesel, as 

mandated by EISA and as was done for 

all feedstocks considered as part of the 

final RFS2 rulemaking. While regional 

specific data was included in the 

analysis the full lifecycle impacts of 

canola oil biodiesel as mentioned above 

were determined based on 

comprehensive national and 

international changes in agriculture and 

associated GHG impacts and therefore 

the data described in the State of 

Washington comments would not 

impact our determination that canola oil 

biodiesel qualifies under the 50% GHG 

threshold for biomass-based diesel and 

advanced biofuel. Furthermore, the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 59627 

4See RFS2 Summary and Analysis of Comments, 

e.g., pg. 7–17, 7–37, 7–149. 

State of Washington comments 

encourage EPA to extend this 

rulemaking to other oilseeds in the 

family Brassicaceae such as camelina. 

Today’s action is limited to canola, so 

this comment raises issues beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. Parties seeking 

EPA analysis of additional fuel 

pathways are urged to follow the 

petition process specified in 40 CFR 

80.1416. 

We received comment from the Clean 

Air Task Force objecting to EPA’s 

assumptions regarding likely 

improvements in canola yields in the 

future. According to the commenter, 

there is ‘‘recent evidence [which] 

significantly undermines any 

expectation that crop yields will 

increase in the future.’’ The commenter 

bases this statement on a study 

suggesting that ‘‘the effects of climate 

change could decrease agricultural 

yields’’ and ‘‘further research is needed 

to identify how crop yields will respond 

to increased levels of carbon dioxide’’. 

However, we note that the authors of the 

study cited by commenters do not draw 

definitive conclusions, but phrase their 

statements cautiously, including, for 

examples, statements such as yields 

‘‘may have reached their ceiling.’’ In the 

study, the authors look principally at 

two crops, wheat and rice, as these 

crops have had declined gains in yield. 

However, the study also notes that 

maize has ‘‘maintained the rate of 

increase of the 1970s and 1980s into the 

most recent decade.’’ This seems to go 

against the commenter’s point that 

‘‘recent evidence significantly 

undermines any expectation that crop 

yields will increase in the future.’’ For 

crops that are not part of these three 

most important grains, no comparison 

has been made in the study. Thus, the 

study does not directly address canola. 

Finally, we note that the thrust of the 

paper is that past approaches to 

increasing yields may be reaching the 

ceiling of potential effectiveness, but the 

author notes many other avenues that 

the author believes can and should be 

pursued to increase yield. Thus, even 

for the crops that have experienced a 

drop in yield increases, the study does 

not necessarily suggest that this will 

remain the case if appropriate research 

as suggested by the paper is conducted. 

Given the uncertain nature of scientific 

advancement and possible future effects 

related to climate change, EPA believes 

that its approach of looking at yield 

trends on a crop by crop basis based on 

past historical and verifiable data 

provides the most reasonable approach 

available at this time to predicting 

future yields. 

EPA bases its crop yields on 

projecting long-term trends based on 

historical data for each crop using the 

same methodology. EPA’s approach is 

consistent with USDA’s future 

projections of crop yield changes over 

time. On the other end of the spectrum, 

we note that during the proposal to the 

final RFS2 rule we received comments 

that EPA’s crop yields were actually too 

low and that yields will continue to 

increase due to improvements in seed 

technology.4 Those commenters would 

argue that higher yields than used by 

EPA should be adopted. We believe that 

our assumptions are reasonably 

justifiable and do not differ from past 

long-term trend yield performance. 

The docket includes a useful 

memorandum which summarizes 

relevant materials used for the canola 

biodiesel pathways analysis including 

detailed information on the assumptions 

used in our lifecycle modeling. 

Described in the memorandum, for 

example, are the input and assumptions 

document (e.g., crop yield projections, 

fertilizer use, agricultural energy use, 

etc.) and detailed results spreadsheets 

(e.g., foreign agricultural impacts, 

foreign agricultural energy use, FASOM 

and FAPRI model results) used to 

generate the results presented above. 

B. Threshold Determination and 

Assignment of Pathways 

As part of this final rule, EPA is 

making a lifecycle GHG threshold 

determination based on its final 

lifecycle GHG analysis for canola oil 

biodiesel. Figure II–1 shows the results 

of the modeling. It shows the percent 

difference between lifecycle GHG 

emissions for 2022 canola oil biodiesel 

as compared to the 2005 petroleum 

diesel fuel baseline. In the figure, the 

zero on the x-axis represents the 

lifecycle GHG emissions equivalent to 

the 2005 petroleum diesel fuel baseline. 

The y-axis on the chart represents the 

likelihood that possible results would 

have a specific GHG reduction value 

shown. The area under the curve 

represents all the possible results. The 

results for canola biodiesel are that the 

midpoint of the range of results is a 50% 

reduction in GHG emissions compared 

to the diesel fuel baseline. The 95% 

confidence interval around that 

midpoint results in range of a 20% 

reduction to a 75% reduction compared 

to the 2005 petroleum diesel fuel 

baseline. These results justify 

authorizing the generation of biomassbased diesel RINs for fuel produced by 

the canola oil biodiesel pathway 

modeled, assuming that the fuel meets 

the other definitional criteria for 

renewable fuel (e.g., produced from 

renewable biomass, and used to reduce 

or replace petroleum-based 

transportation fuel, heating oil or jet 

fuel) specified in EISA. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

59628 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

Table II–1 breaks down by stage the 

lifecycle GHG emissions for canola oil 

biodiesel and the 2005 diesel baseline. 

The biodiesel production process 

reflected in this table assumes that 

natural gas is used for process energy 

and accounts for co-product glycerin 

displacing residual oil. This table 

demonstrates the contribution of each 

stage and its relative significance. 

As a sensitivity case, we also looked 

at the use of biomass as an energy 

source and determined that this would 

further improve the GHG lifecycle 

emissions profile compared to natural 

gas use. Thus, the GHG emissions 

threshold determination would apply to 

facilities using biomass or natural gas as 

an energy source. We have clarified in 

the Table 1 to 80.1426 that canola oil 

biodiesel facilities seeking to generate 

biomass-based diesel or advanced 

biofuel RINs must use either natural gas 

or biomass. Other process energy 

sources (such as coal) have not been 

modeled, but are likely to result in 

additional GHG emissions that would 

result in the pathway failing to provide 

50% lifecycle GHG emissions as 

compared to baseline fuel. This is also 

true for biodiesel pathways using 

soybean oil and other feedstocks. 

However, at this time we are not 

amending Table 1 to § 80.1426 to 

specify the required process energy 

source(s) for soybean oil and other 

biodiesel feedstocks because this rule is 

focused on canola. We commit to 

updating Table 1 to § 80.1426 at a future 

time to include this energy use 

stipulation for other biodiesel 

feedstocks. 

TABLE II–1—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR CANOLA OIL BIODIESEL, 2022 

[kgCO2e/mmBTU] 

Fuel type Canola oil 

biodiesel 

2005 Diesel 

baseline 

Net Domestic Agriculture (w/o land use change) .................................................................................................... 8 ........................

Net International Agriculture (w/o land use change) ............................................................................................... 0 ........................

Domestic Land Use Change ................................................................................................................................... 3 ........................

International Land Use Change, Mean (Low/High) ................................................................................................. 31 (7/61) ........................


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULESER28SE10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 59629 

5 Grandfathered facilities could generate 

renewable fuel RINs with a D code of 6 beginning 

on July 1, 2010, but many of these producers 

believed that their biofuel should be qualified for 

generating RINs with D codes other than 6. 

TABLE II–1—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS FOR CANOLA OIL BIODIESEL, 2022—Continued 

[kgCO2e/mmBTU] 

Fuel type Canola oil 

biodiesel 

2005 Diesel 

baseline 

Fuel Production ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 18 

Fuel and Feedstock Transport ................................................................................................................................ 2 * 

Tailpipe Emissions ................................................................................................................................................... 1 79 

Total Emissions, Mean (Low/High) .......................................................................................................................... 48 (25/78) 97 

* Emissions included in fuel production stage. 

Based on the above analyses, canola 

oil biodiesel has been found to comply 

with the lifecycle GHG reduction 

thresholds (50%) applicable to the 

biomass-based diesel and advanced 

biofuel categories and are therefore 

eligible for the D-Codes specified in 

Table II–2. 

TABLE II–2—D–CODE DESIGNATIONS

Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D-Code 

Biodiesel ........................................ Canola oil ...................................... Trans-Esterification using natural 

gas or biomass for process energy.

4 (biomass-based diesel). 

III. Delayed RIN Generation for New 

Pathways 

In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) published on July 20, 2010 (75 

FR 42238), we proposed a new 

regulatory provision that would allow 

RINs to be generated for fuel produced 

on or after July 1, 2010 representing 

certain fuel pathways that were not in 

Table 1 to § 80.1426 as of July 1, 2010, 

but were added to Table 1 by January 1, 

2011. Under the proposal, RINs could be 

generated only if the pathways were 

indeed approved as valid RINgenerating pathways, and only for 

volumes of fuel produced between July 

1, 2010 and the effective date of a new 

pathway added to Table 1 to § 80.1426. 

In today’s rule, we are finalizing 

regulatory provisions for ‘‘delayed RINs’’ 

with certain modifications as described 

below only for biodiesel produced from 

canola oil since today’s action adds only 

this new RIN-generating pathway to 

Table 1 to § 80.1426. 

For the RFS2 final rule (75 FR 14670), 

we attempted to evaluate and model as 

many pathways as possible so that 

producers and importers could generate 

RFS2 RINs beginning on July 1, 2010. 

However, we were not able to complete 

the evaluation of all pathways that we 

had planned. In the final RFS2 

rulemaking we announced our intention 

to complete the evaluation of three 

specific pathways after release of the 

RFS2 final rule: Grain sorghum ethanol, 

pulpwood biofuel, and palm oil 

biodiesel (see Section V.C of the RFS2 

final rule, 75 FR 14796). To this list we 

added biodiesel produced from canola 

oil as this biofuel was produced under 

RFS1 and was also expected to 

participate in the RFS2 program at the 

program’s inception. 

Following release of the final RFS2 

rule, we determined that the lifecycle 

assessments for these additional 

pathways would not be completed by 

July 1, 2010, the start of the RFS2 

program. While some producers of these 

biofuels could continue to generate RINs 

under the RFS2 ‘‘grandfathering’’ 

provisions, they would have no 

approved means for generating highervalue RINs (i.e. cellulosic biofuel, 

biomass-based diesel, or advanced 

biofuel) 5. Knowing that this 

circumstance had the potential to 

adversely impact these producers as 

well as to reduce the number of RINs 

available in the market relative to 

biofuel volume, in the July 20, 2010 

NPRM, we proposed a new regulatory 

provision for delayed RINs that would 

allow certain renewable fuel producers 

to generate higher-value RINs for all fuel 

they produce and sell between July 1, 

2010, and the effective date of the new 

pathway, if applicable pathways are 

ultimately approved for RIN generation 

after July 1, 2010 and by December 

31,2010. This proposed provision was 

designed to allow biofuel producers to 

participate in the RFS2 program as fully 

as possible as it gets underway even 

though we were not able to complete the 

evaluation of a number of pathways 

prior to July 1. However, we also 

indicated in the preamble to the 

proposal that we intended to apply the 

delayed RINs provision to only the four 

pathways under consideration prior to 

July 1, 2010 (grain sorghum ethanol, 

pulpwood biofuel, palm oil biodiesel, 

and canola oil biodiesel) if any of these 

pathways are determined to meet the 

applicable GHG thresholds prior to 

January 1, 2011, and the provision 

would apply only for renewable fuel 

produced in 2010. 

In response to the NPRM, most 

commenters supported such a 

provision. However, the American 

Petroleum Institute and the National 

Petrochemical Refiners Association 

opposed the proposal, stating that 

retroactively applicable actions are 

inappropriate and that delayed RINs 

would create more uncertainty for 

obligated parties. However, we continue 

to believe that the delayed RINs 

provision is both appropriate and will 

actually help obligated parties to 

comply with the applicable standards. 

Since the delayed RINs provision will 

increase the likelihood that higher-value 

RINs will be generated in 2010, more 

such RINs may be available to obligated 

parties for compliance purposes. 

Delayed RINs can be bought and sold 

independently of renewable fuel 

volumes, making them more easily 

marketable and more directly available 

to obligated parties than RINs assigned 

to renewable fuel. In addition, while 

this provision will allow RINs to be 

generated after the associated renewable 

fuel has been produced and sold, it does 

not constitute an impermissibly 

retroactive provision. Producers who 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

59630 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

generate delayed RINs will do so 

voluntarily, and after the effective date 

of the new pathway. No additional 

burdens will be placed upon obligated 

parties and the rule will have no impact 

on any settled transactions of an 

obligated party. Moreover, RINs already 

generated and accepted in EMTS will 

not be affected. The D code assigned to 

any given RIN will not change, and RINs 

owned by any party can be retained by 

them for compliance purposes or sold as 

they wish. 

Finally, to the extent that the 

provision could be seen as having 

retroactive impacts, EPA believes its 

action is authorized by CAA section 

211(o)(2)(A)(iii), providing that 

‘‘regardless of the date of promulgation, 

the regulations * * * shall contain 

compliance provisions applicable to 

refineries, blenders, distributors, and 

importers, as appropriate, to ensure that 

the requirements’’ of the Act relating to 

use of specified volumes of renewable 

fuel are satisfied. The delayed RINs 

provision is a ‘‘compliance provision’’ 

because it relates to RINs, and RINs are 

the currency by which obligated parties 

demonstrate compliance. The delayed 

RINs provision relates to ensuring that 

the volumes of renewable fuel specified 

in the statute are met, by allowing 

producers to generate appropriate RINs 

for canola oil biodiesel that reflects its 

proper identification as biomass based 

diesel under the statute. 

Two commenters requested that the 

provision for delayed RINs be made 

applicable to other pathways as well, 

such as pathways utilizing camelina and 

winter barley. Since the only new 

pathway that we approving for RIN 

generation in today’s action is biodiesel 

produced from canola oil, we are 

finalizing the delayed RINs provision 

only for this pathway in today’s action. 

The application of delayed RINs to other 

pathways does not need to be addressed 

in this action, as it does not affect the 

decision on delayed RINs for biodiesel 

produced from canola oil. 

Several commenters responded to our 

proposed 30-day deadline for generation 

of delayed RINs by saying that 

additional time is necessary to allow 

grandfathered producers to acquire and 

retire an appropriate number of general 

renewable fuel (D code of 6) RINs. We 

proposed the 30-day limit because we 

believe that the deadline for the 

generation of delayed RINs should be 

set such that they are entering the 

market as close as possible to the date 

of production of the renewable fuel that 

they represent. However, we agree with 

the commenters that 60-days is a 

reasonable timeframe consistent with 

this consideration, and that it is 

appropriate to allow producers 

additional time to complete necessary 

transactions. Therefore, today’s final 

rule provides that all delayed RINs for 

a given pathway must be generated 

within 60-days of the effective date of 

either a qualifying rule adding that 

pathway to Table 1 to § 80.1426, or of 

a qualifying action on a petition 

pursuant to § 80.1416. 

As described in the RFS2 final rule, 

grandfathered producers can generate 

RINs for their renewable fuel starting on 

July 1, 2010, but must designate the D 

code as 6 for such fuel, and they must 

transfer those RINs with renewable fuel 

they sell. Under today’s rule, such 

grandfathered producers who qualify for 

the generation of delayed RINs, and who 

wish to avail themselves of the 

opportunity, will be required to acquire 

and retire RINs from the open market 

with a D code of 6 prior to the 

generation of delayed RINs. The number 

of RINs retired in this fashion must be 

no greater than the number they 

generated in 2010 in the time period 

between July 1, 2010 and the effective 

date of the new approved pathway for 

biodiesel made from canola oil. Once 

those RINs are retired, an equivalent 

number of delayed RINs with a different 

D code can be generated and sold. One 

commenter requested that the 

regulations allow delayed RINs to be 

generated and sold before, rather than 

after, the producer retires an equivalent 

number of RINs with a D code of 6. The 

commenter argued that this approach 

would allow producers to generate and 

sell delayed RINs as quickly as possible, 

and would also allow the producer to 

use the proceeds from the sale of 

delayed RINs to purchase and retire 

RINs with a D code of 6. However, 

despite these advantages to producers, 

we continue to believe that delayed 

RINs should only be generated after 

RINs with a D code of 6 are retired. In 

order to ensure that the number of RINs 

in the market accurately reflects biofuel 

produced or imported to represent those 

RINs, the number of delayed RINs 

generated must be equivalent to the 

number of RINs with a D code of 6 that 

are retired. If a producer were to 

generate and sell delayed RINs prior to 

retiring RINs with a D code of 6, the 

producer would be forced to estimate 

the appropriate number of delayed RINs 

to generate, and there would be no 

recourse for correcting an 

overestimation. By requiring RINs with 

a D code of 6 to be retired first, the 

producer will know exactly how many 

delayed RINs he is permitted to 

generate. 

IV. Public Participation 

Many interested parties participated 

in the rulemaking process that 

culminates with this final rule. The 

public had an opportunity to submit 

both written and oral comments on the 

proposed RFS2 final rule published on 

May 26, 2009 (74 FR 24904), and has 

had an opportunity to submit additional 

comments following publication of the 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for 

canola oil biodiesel that was published 

on July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43522). We have 

considered these comments in 

developing today’s final rule. 

One commenter on the canola oil 

biodiesel NODA objected to ‘‘EPA’s 

finalization of a petition process to 

generate RINs for additional fuels or 

additional fuel pathways without 

providing an adequate opportunity for 

notice and comment.’’ The comment 

apparently relates to the process 

established in the RFS2 final rule, in 

§ 80.1416, for parties to petition EPA to 

evaluate the lifecycle GHG reductions 

associated with additional biofuel 

production pathways beyond those 

already covered in Table 1 to § 80.1426. 

EPA notes that today’s action on canola 

oil biodiesel was not made pursuant to 

this petition process, so this comment is 

not relevant to this proceeding. The 

commenter also states, more generally, 

that EPA is required ‘‘to conduct a 

notice and comment rulemaking before 

approving any biofuel under EISA,’’ and 

that although the commenter 

appreciates that EPA has provided 

through issuance of the NODA an 

opportunity for public comment with 

respect to the canola oil biodiesel 

analysis, that ‘‘EPA was required to 

comply with the full procedural 

requirements of section 307(d) of the 

Clean Air Act.’’ EPA responds here only 

to these comments as they relate to 

today’s final action with respect to 

canola oil biodiesel. EPA’s proposed 

RFS2 rule would have qualified all 

‘‘biodiesel made from ‘‘soybean oil and 

other virgin plant oils’’ through a 

transesterification process as renewable 

fuel with a D code of 4. See proposed 

Table 1 to § 80.1426 (74 FR 25119, May 

26, 2009). Canola oil is a virgin plant oil 

within the scope of this proposal. The 

public was afforded an opportunity to 

submit written comments on this 

proposal, and also an opportunity to 

present oral comments during a public 

hearing held on June 9, 2009. In the 

final RFS2 rule published on March 26, 

2010, EPA did not take final action on 

the component of its proposal that 

related to ‘‘other virgin plant oils’’ such 

as canola biodiesel. See final Table 1 to 

§ 80.1426 (75 FR 14872). Instead it has 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 59631 

conducted additional analytical work 

and provided an additional opportunity 

for comment on that work as described 

in the NODA EPA views this final 

action as a continuation of the 

rulemaking process initiated in the May 

26, 2009 proposal, and believes it has 

fully complied with all procedural 

requirements of Section 307(d) of the 

Clean Air Act. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) because it is not 

likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, not 

likely to create a serious inconsistency 

or otherwise interfere with an action 

taken or planned by another agency, not 

likely to materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs, and not likely to 

raise novel legal or policy issues arising 

out of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

the EO. Therefore, this rule is not 

subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. Parties 

who are affected by today’s regulation 

are already covered by the registration, 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

of the RFS2 regulations. The new canola 

oil biodiesel pathway provides an 

additional means for generating RINs, 

but does not add any new information 

collection burden. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

RFS2 regulations at 40 CFR Part 80, 

subpart M, under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned the 

following OMB control numbers 2060– 

0637 (‘‘Renewable Fuels Standard 

Program, Petition and Registration’’) and 

2060–0640 (‘‘Renewable Fuels 

Standard’’). The OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute 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 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (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; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

we certify that this proposed action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This rule does not impose a 

new burden but creates a new 

opportunity to generate RINs. Therefore, 

there should be no adverse impacts on 

small businesses. In determining 

whether a rule has a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the impact of 

concern is any significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities, 

since the primary purpose of the 

regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires Federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 

generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result 

in expenditures to State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. 

This rule is not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. EPA 

has determined that this rule imposes 

no enforceable duty on any State, local 

or tribal governments. In addition this 

rule will not result in expenditures to 

State, local, and tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), 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.’’ 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It 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 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This rule will be implemented at 

the Federal level and impose 

compliance costs only on transportation 

fuel refiners, blenders, marketers, 

distributors, importers, and exporters. 

Tribal governments would be affected 

only to the extent they purchase and use 

regulated fuels. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 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 EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks and 

because it implements specific 

provisions established by Congress in 

statutes. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

59632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it only provides new 

opportunities for RIN generation, and 

thus is not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

we have concluded that this rule is not 

subject to the EO. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This rulemaking 

does not adopt or change any technical 

standards, so the EO is not applicable to 

this rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

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 since the Agency is 

implementing specific standards 

established by Congress in statutes. 

Although EPA lacks authority to modify 

today’s regulatory action on the basis of 

environmental justice considerations, 

EPA nevertheless determined that this 

rule does not have a disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental impact on minority or 

low-income populations. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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 the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

VI. Statutory Provisions and Legal 

Authority 

Statutory authority for the rule 

finalized today can be found in section 

211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7545. Additional support for the 

procedural and compliance related 

aspects of today’s rule, including the 

recordkeeping requirements, come from 

Sections 114, 208, and 301(a) of the 

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and 

7601(a). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agriculture, Air pollution control, 

Confidential business information, 

Diesel fuel, Energy, Forest and forest 

products, Fuel additives, Gasoline, 

Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 22, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 80 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS 

AND FUEL ADDITIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 80 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, 7545, and 

7601(a). 

■ 2. Section 80.1426 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(1) and Table 1 to 

§ 80.1426 following paragraph (f)(1), and 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 80.1426 How are RINs generated and 

assigned to batches of renewable fuel by 

renewable fuel producers or importers? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(g) of this section for delayed RINs, the 

producer or importer of renewable fuel 

must assign all RINs generated to 

volumes of renewable fuel. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 80.1426—APPLICABLE D CODES FOR EACH FUEL PATHWAY FOR USE IN GENERATING RINS

Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D-Code 

Ethanol ............................. Corn starch .............................................................. All of the following: 

Dry mill process, using natural gas, biomass, or 

biogas for process energy and at least two advanced technologies from Table 2 to this section.

6 

Ethanol ............................. Corn starch .............................................................. All of the following: 

Dry mill process, using natural gas, biomass, or 

biogas for process energy and at least one of 

the advanced technologies from Table 2 to this 

section plus drying no more than 65% of the 

distillers grains with solubles it markets annually.

6 

Ethanol ............................. Corn starch .............................................................. All of the following: 

Dry mill process, using natural gas, biomass, or 

biogas for process energy and drying no more 

than 50% of the distillers grains with solubles it 

markets annually.

6 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 59633 

TABLE 1 TO § 80.1426—APPLICABLE D CODES FOR EACH FUEL PATHWAY FOR USE IN GENERATING RINS—Continued 

Fuel type Feedstock Production process requirements D-Code 

Ethanol ............................. Corn starch .............................................................. Wet mill process using biomass or biogas for 

process energy.

6 

Ethanol ............................. Starches from crop residue and annual covercrops Fermentation using natural gas, biomass, or 

biogas for process energy.

6 

Biodiesel, and renewable 

diesel.

Soy bean oil; 

Oil from annual covercrops; 

Algal oil; 

Biogenic waste oils/fats/greases; 

Non-food grade corn oil 

One of the following: 

Trans-Esterification 

Hydrotreating 

Excluding processes that co-process renewable 

biomass and petroleum 

4 

Biodiesel ........................... Canola oil ................................................................ Trans-Esterification using natural gas or biomass 

for process energy.

4 

Biodiesel, and renewable 

diesel.

Soy bean oil; 

Oil from annual covercrops; 

Algal oil; 

Biogenic waste oils/fats/greases; 

Non-food grade corn oil 

One of the following: 

Trans-Esterification 

Hydrotreating 

Includes only processes that co-process renewable biomass and petroleum 

5 

Ethanol ............................. Sugarcane ............................................................... Fermentation ........................................................... 5 

Ethanol ............................. Cellulosic Biomass from crop residue, slash, precommercial thinnings and tree residue, annual 

covercrops, switchgrass, and miscanthus; cellulosic components of separated yard waste; cellulosic components of separated food waste; 

and cellulosic components of separated MSW.

Any .......................................................................... 3 

Cellulosic Diesel, Jet Fuel 

and Heating Oil.

Cellulosic Biomass from crop residue, slash, precommercial thinnings and tree residue, annual 

covercrops, switchgrass, and miscanthus; cellulosic components of separated yard waste; cellulosic components of separated food waste; 

and cellulosic components of separated MSW.

Any .......................................................................... 7 

Butanol ............................. Corn starch .............................................................. Fermentation; dry mill using natural gas, biomass, 

or biogas for process energy.

6 

Cellulosic Naphtha ........... Cellulosic Biomass from crop residue, slash, precommercial thinnings and tree residue, annual 

covercrops, switchgrass, and miscanthus; cellulosic components of separated yard waste; cellulosic components of separated food waste; 

and cellulosic components of separated MSW.

Fischer-Tropsch process ......................................... 3 

Ethanol, renewable diesel, 

jet fuel, heating oil, and 

naphtha.

The non-cellulosic portions of separated food 

waste.

Any .......................................................................... 5 

Biogas .............................. Landfills, sewage waste treatment plants, manure 

digesters.

Any .......................................................................... 5 

* * * * * 

(g) Delayed RIN generation. (1) Parties 

who produce or import renewable fuel 

may elect to generate delayed RINs to 

represent renewable fuel volumes that 

have already been transferred to another 

party if those renewable fuel volumes 

meet all of the following criteria. 

(i) The renewable fuel is biodiesel that 

is made from canola oil and described 

by a pathway in Table 1 to § 80.1426; 

and 

(ii) The fuel was produced or 

imported between July 1, 2010, and 

September 28, 2010 inclusive. 

(2) Delayed RINs must be generated 

no later than the following deadline: 

(i) For renewable fuel that is biodiesel 

that is made from canola oil and 

described by a pathway in Table 1 to 

§ 80.1426, no later than 60 days after 

September 28, 2010. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) A party authorized pursuant to 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section to 

generate delayed RINs, and electing to 

do so, who generated RINs pursuant to 

80.1426(f)(6) and transferred those RINs 

with renewable fuel volumes between 

July 1, 2010 and September 28, 2010 

inclusive, must retire a number of 

gallon-RINs prior to generating delayed 

RINs. 

(i) The number of gallon-RINs retired 

by a party pursuant to this paragraph 

must not exceed the number of gallonRINs originally generated by the party to 

represent fuel described in paragraph 

(g)(1)(i) of this section that was 

produced or imported, and transferred 

to another party, between July 1, 2010 

and September 28, 2010 inclusive. 

(ii) Retired RINs must have a D code 

of 6. 

(iii) Retired RINs must have a K code 

of 2. 

(iv) Retired RINs must have been 

generated in 2010. 

(4) For parties that retire RINs 

pursuant to paragraph (g)(3) of this 

section, the number of delayed gallonRINs generated shall be equal to the 

number of gallon-RINs retired. 

(5) A party authorized pursuant to 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section to 

generate delayed RINs, and electing to 

do so, who did not generate RINs 

pursuant to 80.1426(f)(6) for renewable 

fuel produced or imported between July 

1, 2010 and September 28, 2010 

inclusive, may generate a number of 

delayed gallon-RINs for that renewable 

fuel in accordance with paragraph (f) of 

this section. 

(i) The standardized volume of fuel 

(Vs) used by a party to determine the 

RIN volume (VRIN) under paragraph (f) 

of this section shall be the standardized 

volume of the fuel described in 

paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section that 

was produced or imported by the party, 

and transferred to another party, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

59634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

between July 1, 2010 and September 28, 

2010 inclusive 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(6) The renewable fuel for which 

delayed RINs are generated must be 

described by the new pathway 

described in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section. 

(7) All delayed RINs generated by a 

renewable fuel producer or importer 

must be generated on the same date. 

(8) Delayed RINs shall be generated as 

assigned RINs in EMTS, and then 

immediately separated by the RIN 

generator. 

(9) The D code that shall be used in 

delayed RINs shall be the D code which 

corresponds to the new pathway. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24310 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003] 

Final Flood Elevation Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified 

BFEs are made final for the 

communities listed below. The BFEs 

and modified BFEs are the basis for the 

floodplain management measures that 

each community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to qualify or 

remain qualified for participation in the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood 

Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing 

BFEs and modified BFEs for each 

community. This date may be obtained 

by contacting the office where the maps 

are available for inspection as indicated 

in the table below. 

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy 

E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk 

Analysis Division, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3461, or (e-mail) 

roy.e.wright@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) makes the final determinations 

listed below for the modified BFEs for 

each community listed. These modified 

elevations have been published in 

newspapers of local circulation and 

ninety (90) days have elapsed since that 

publication. The Deputy Federal 

Insurance and Mitigation Administrator 

has resolved any appeals resulting from 

this notification. 

This final rule is issued in accordance 

with section 110 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, 

and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has 

developed criteria for floodplain 

management in floodprone areas in 

accordance with 44 CFR part 60. 

Interested lessees and owners of real 

property are encouraged to review the 

proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM 

available at the address cited below for 

each community. The BFEs and 

modified BFEs are made final in the 

communities listed below. Elevations at 

selected locations in each community 

are shown. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This final rule is categorically excluded 

from the requirements of 44 CFR part 

10, Environmental Consideration. An 

environmental impact assessment has 

not been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Regulatory Classification. This final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This final rule involves no policies that 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This final rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

■ Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 67—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 67 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 

§ 67.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 67.11 are amended as 

follows: 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation 

* Elevation in feet 

(NGVD) 

+ Elevation in feet 

(NAVD) 

# Depth in feet 

above ground 

∧Elevation in 

meters (MSL) 

Modified 

Communities 

affected 

Napa County, California, and Incorporated Areas 

Docket No.: FEMA–B–1072 

Napa Creek ............................... At the confluence with the Napa River ............................... +18 City of Napa. 

Approximately 100 feet upstream of Jefferson Street ........ +34 

Napa River (With Levee) .......... Approximately 715 feet west of the State Route 121/East 

Avenue intersection.

+27 City of Napa, Unincorporated 

Areas of Napa County. 

Approximately 1,530 feet southwest of the intersection of 

State Route 121 and Woodland Drive.

+29 

Napa River (Without Levee) ..... Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Imola Avenue ....... +12 City of Napa, Unincorporated 

Areas of Napa County. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES