Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Canola Oil Pathways to Renewable Diesel, Jet Fuel, Naphtha, Liquefied Petroleum Gas, and Heating Oil, 73956-73965 [2022-26250]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73956
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845; FRL–9075–02–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AV55
Renewable Fuel Standard Program:
Canola Oil Pathways to Renewable
Diesel, Jet Fuel, Naphtha, Liquefied
Petroleum Gas, and Heating Oil
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this action, EPA
determines that renewable diesel, jet
fuel, heating oil, naphtha, and liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG) produced from
canola/rapeseed oil via a hydrotreating
process all meet the lifecycle
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
reduction threshold of 50 percent
required for advanced biofuels and
biomass-based diesel (BBD) under the
SUMMARY:
NAICS 1 code
Category
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
1 North
111120
324110
325199
424690
424710
424720
454310
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 electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Ramig, Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Transportation and
Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564–
1372; email address: ramig.christopher@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this
final rule are those involved with the
production, distribution, and sale of
transportation fuels, including gasoline
and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such
as biodiesel, heating oil, renewable
diesel, naphtha, and LPG. Potentially
regulated categories include:
Examples of potentially affected entities
Oilseed (except Soybean) Farming.
Petroleum refineries (including importers).
Other basic organic chemical manufacturing.
Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers.
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals.
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers.
Other fuel dealers.
American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated or otherwise affected by this
action. This table lists the types of
entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be affected by this action.
Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be affected. To
determine whether your entity is
regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability
criteria in the referenced regulations. If
you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
Table of Contents
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
program. Based on the analyses
described in the earlier notice of
proposed rulemaking associated with
this action, EPA is adding these
pathways to the list of approved
pathways in the RFS regulations,
making them eligible to generate
Renewable Identification Numbers
(RINs), provided they satisfy the other
definitional and RIN generation criteria
for renewable fuel specified in the RFS
regulations. EPA is also amending the
RFS regulations by adding a new
definition of ‘‘canola/rapeseed oil.’’
DATES: This rule is effective on January
3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845. All
documents are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov website. 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
I. Introduction
II. Review and Response to Comments on the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Comments Received on Our Lifecycle
Analysis
B. Other Comments Received on Our
Proposed Pathway Determinations
III. Definition of Canola/Rapeseed Oil
IV. Analysis of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Dec 01, 2022
Jkt 259001
A. Overview of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
Analysis
B. Data Updates Based on GREET–2021
C. Summary of Analysis of Lifecycle GHG
Emissions
V. Summary
VI. Statutory & Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
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
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
VII. Statutory Authority
I. Introduction
Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) establishes the RFS program,
under which EPA sets annual
percentage standards specifying the
total amount of renewable fuel, as well
as three subcategories of renewable fuel,
that must be used to reduce or replace
fossil fuel present in transportation fuel,
heating oil, or jet fuel. Non-exempt
renewable fuels must achieve at least a
20 percent reduction in lifecycle GHG
emissions as compared to a 2005
petroleum baseline. Advanced biofuel
and BBD must achieve at least a 50
percent reduction, and cellulosic biofuel
must achieve at least a 60 percent
reduction.1
In addition to having to meet the
applicable lifecycle GHG reduction
requirements, a fuel may only generate
RINs if it meets the definitional and
other criteria for renewable fuel (e.g.,
feedstock is a qualifying source of
1 See,
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
generally, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1).
02DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
renewable biomass as defined in the
regulations and used to reduce or
replace the quantity of fossil fuel
present in transportation fuel, heating
oil, or jet fuel) in CAA section 211(o)
and the RFS regulations at 40 CFR part
80, subpart M.
Only fuels produced using pathways
that EPA has approved as meeting all
applicable requirements are eligible to
generate RINs. There are three critical
components of fuel pathways under the
RFS program: (1) fuel type; (2)
feedstock; and (3) production process.
Each approved pathway is associated
with a specific ‘‘D code’’ corresponding
to whether the fuel meets the
requirements for renewable fuel,
advanced fuel, cellulosic fuel, or BBD.2
Since the formation of the RFS program,
EPA has periodically promulgated rules
to add new pathways to the
regulations.3 In addition, EPA has
approved facility-specific pathways
through the petition process in 40 CFR
80.1416.
EPA’s lifecycle analyses are used to
assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel
throughout each stage of its production
and use. The results of these analyses,
considering uncertainty and the weight
of available evidence, are used to
determine whether a fuel meets the
necessary GHG reduction threshold
required under the CAA. Lifecycle
analysis includes an assessment of
emissions related to the full fuel
lifecycle, including feedstock
production, feedstock transportation,
fuel production, fuel transportation and
distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per
the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG
emissions,4 EPA’s lifecycle analyses
also include an assessment of significant
indirect emissions, such as those from
land use changes (LUC) and agricultural
sector impacts.
EPA conducted lifecycle GHG
analyses for several combinations of
biofuel feedstocks, production
processes, and fuels and promulgated
several fuel pathways as part of its
March 26, 2010 RFS2 final rule (75 FR
14670) (the ‘‘March 2010 RFS2 rule’’). In
the preamble to that final rule, EPA
indicated that it intended to add fuel
pathways to the regulations via further
notice-and-comment rulemakings. EPA
subsequently completed a proposed
assessment for canola oil biodiesel; this
proposed assessment was published in
2 For
additional information see: https://
www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/
fuel-pathways-under-renewable-fuel-standard.
3 See, e.g., 83 FR 37735 (August 2, 2018)
approving grain sorghum oil pathways and 78 FR
41703 (July 11, 2013) approving giant reed and
Napier grass pathways.
4 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(H).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Dec 01, 2022
Jkt 259001
the Federal Register for notice and
comment on July 26, 2010 (75 FR
43522). This proposed assessment
evaluated the GHG emissions associated
with biodiesel produced from canola oil
through a transesterification process. On
September 28, 2010, EPA published a
rule finalizing our determination that
canola oil biodiesel meets the lifecycle
GHG emissions reduction threshold of
50 percent required by the CAA and
added row G to Table 1 to 40 CFR
80.1426, making canola oil biodiesel
produced through a transesterification
process eligible for BBD (D–code 4)
RINs (75 FR 59622) (the ‘‘September
2010 Canola Oil rule’’). This final rule
did not include determinations for
renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha, LPG,
or heating oil produced from canola oil
via a hydrotreating process.5 In the 2013
Pathways I final rule (78 FR 14190,
March 5, 2013) (the ‘‘2013 Pathways I
rule’’), EPA added rapeseed oil as a
feedstock in the existing pathway in row
G for renewable fuel made from canola
oil because ‘‘we had not intended the
supplemental determination to cover
just those varieties or sources of
rapeseed that are identified as canola’’
(78 FR 14214). In that same rule, for
clarity EPA also added ‘‘heating oil’’ to
the rows in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426
that already included renewable diesel
or biodiesel (78 FR 14201). As in the
2013 Pathways I rule, in this action we
are similarly adding new pathways to
Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for biofuels
produced from ‘‘canola/rapeseed oil’’
but for simplicity we refer to both
canola and rapeseed as ‘‘canola’’
throughout this preamble.
In 2020, the United States Canola
Association (USCA) submitted a
rulemaking petition to EPA requesting
an evaluation of the GHG emissions
associated with renewable diesel, jet
fuel, naphtha, LPG, and heating oil
produced from canola oil via a
hydrotreating process, and a
determination of the renewable fuel
categories, if any, for which such
biofuels may be eligible.6
In response to the USCA petition,
EPA conducted an analysis of the
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
these fuel pathways. In April 2022, we
published this analysis as part of the
notice of proposed rulemaking (87 FR
5 Hydrotreating, the process used to produce the
vast majority of renewable diesel, consists of
catalytic reactions in the presence of hydrogen. This
process produces a ‘‘drop-in’’ fuel with properties
virtually identical to petroleum diesel and distinct
from biodiesel.
6 U.S. Canola Association. (2020). Petition for
Pathways for Renewable Diesel from Canola Oil as
‘‘Advanced Biofuel’’ Under the Renewable Fuel
Standard Program. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–
0040.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73957
22823, April 18, 2022) (the ‘‘Canola
NPRM’’) associated with this final
rulemaking.7
As described in the Canola NPRM
preamble, we estimated the lifecycle
GHG emissions associated with the
production of renewable diesel,
naphtha, LPG, and jet fuel via a
hydrotreating process. The Canola
NPRM preamble discussed these
estimates and our consideration of
uncertainty in the analysis. Based on
this analysis, we proposed to find that
these biofuels meet the 50 percent GHG
reduction threshold required for
advanced biofuel and BBD. In the
Canola NPRM, we also proposed a
definition of ‘‘canola/rapeseed oil’’ to
provide clarity about which feedstocks
would qualify under these proposed
pathways.
In this final action, EPA is adding to
Table 1 of 40 CFR 80.1426 pathways for
the production of renewable diesel, jet
fuel, naphtha, LPG, and heating oil
produced from canola oil via a
hydrotreating process, as proposed.
Upon the effective date of this action,
these fuel pathways are eligible for
either BBD (D–code 4) or advanced
biofuel (D–code 5) RINs, depending on
the fuel type and whether they are
produced through a hydrotreating
process that co-processes renewable
biomass with petroleum. We are also
finalizing our proposed definition of
‘‘canola/rapeseed oil’’ and adding this
definition to 40 CFR 80.1401.
II. Review and Response to Comments
on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Comments Received on Our Lifecycle
Analysis
EPA requested comment on its
lifecycle analysis of the GHG emissions
associated with renewable diesel, jet
fuel, naphtha, LPG, and heating oil
produced from canola oil via a
hydrotreating process.
Several commenters expressed
support for our lifecycle analysis.
Commenters supported EPA’s new
modeling of canola oil-based fuels using
updated data on canola and canola
products.8 Commenters also expressed
that EPA’s updated modeling of
international canola market conditions
better simulates and reflects the
behavior of the historical and current
global canola trade, in particular the
7 The full set of modeling results, post-processing
spreadsheets and other technical documents
describing this analysis are available in the docket
for this action.
8 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–
0845–0053, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0055, EPA–
HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0057, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–
0845–0066, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0068, EPA–
HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0069.
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
73958
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
dynamics between the U.S. and
Canada.9 Commenters did not provide
any comments on this analysis that
indicate it is unreasonable to rely on it
for this rulemaking, such as the
presence of errors in the analysis, the
use of outdated data, or any other
scientific deficiencies that might require
EPA to conduct new analysis before
finalizing our determination. Some
commenters stated that EPA’s analysis
may be overly conservative in the sense
that, in the opinion of these
commenters, our analysis may overstate
the GHG intensity of canola oil-based
fuels. Multiple commenters claimed that
U.S. canola producers may be able to
expand canola production on fallow
land or Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) land, or make changes to crop
rotations, to provide additional canola
seed and oil for biofuel feedstock supply
without the need for cultivation of new
crop area. Commenters argued that, for
these reasons EPA’s estimated cropland
change emissions impacts may be too
high.10 However, these commenters did
not provide data or information that
would support specific revisions in our
modeling. Regardless, revising our
analysis in the manner suggested by
these commenters would not materially
affect the results of our determination
for these canola oil pathways. Since we
proposed to determine that the
pathways in question be approved to
generate RINs under the most valuable
renewable fuel categories (i.e., the
advanced biofuel and/or BBD pathways)
for which they are eligible, further
reductions in LUC emissions, were a
revised analysis to find such a result,
would lead to the same pathway
determination. Finally, commenters
who made these points did not state that
revisions should be made to EPA’s
analysis before finalizing the proposed
pathways. Rather, these commenters
instead uniformly supported the
finalization of EPA’s analysis and
determination as proposed. For all of
these reasons, we believe no revisions to
our lifecycle analysis are appropriate or
necessary in response to these
comments.
Commenters supported our inclusion
of pathways for fuels produced from coprocessing canola oil with petroleum
feedstocks, i.e., co-processed fuels.11 In
their comments, Phillips 66 suggested
additional data sources about the
9 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–
0845–0066, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0072.
10 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0053, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0055,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0063, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0066, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0076.
11 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0079.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Dec 01, 2022
Jkt 259001
emissions associated with co-processing
of canola oil via hydrotreating, which
EPA could consider if needed. However,
neither Phillips 66 nor any other
commenter who addressed coprocessing suggested that any revision
of this aspect of our analysis was
needed. Further, revising our analysis to
consider the additional data provided
by Phillips 66 would not materially
affect the results of our determination
for these canola oil pathways. We
believe no revisions to our lifecycle
analysis are appropriate or necessary in
response to these comments.
The American Petroleum Institute
(API) observed that lifecycle analysis
methodology was the focus of a recent
EPA workshop on biofuel GHG
modeling.12 API expressed support for
the efforts of EPA to consider new
science and data in the context of
biofuel lifecycle analysis. However, API
also expressed that the scientific
discussions at this workshop should not
necessitate any revisions to the analysis
conducted for the Canola NPRM. Rather,
this commenter stated that any such
revisions should be considered in the
future in the context of more holistic reexamination of RFS pathways, so that
they can be applied consistently across
all approved pathways.13 EPA did not
propose to apply a new lifecycle
analysis methodology to canola oil, and
we are not doing so in this final rule.
Any decisions EPA may make about
future lifecycle analyses and
determinations are outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
In the proposed rule we requested
comment on our proposed use of an
energy allocation approach to evaluate
co-products from hydrotreating
processes (87 FR 22838). We received
two comments on this topic.14 One of
the commenters said they agree with
EPA’s reasoning and support the energy
allocation approach taken. The other
commenter did not oppose EPA’s use of
energy allocation, but believes it is a
conservative approach that may not be
appropriate in all cases. Based on these
comments, and the reasons given in the
proposed rule, we are retaining the
proposed energy allocation approach to
the evaluation of the co-products from
hydrotreating processes. Furthermore,
for the reasons discussed in the
proposed rule, we believe that energy
allocation is generally the most
appropriate approach for co-products
that may be used as transportation fuel.
12 For information regarding this workshop, see
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0921.
13 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–
0845–0058.
14 Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–
0079 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0072.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Unlike the displacement approach, the
allocation approach does not depend on
which co-products generate RINs (or for
which producers request RIN
eligibility), which is subject to change
based on market and regulatory
conditions.
We have determined that no changes
to our proposed lifecycle analysis of the
GHG emissions associated with
renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha, LPG,
and heating oil produced from canola
oil via a hydrotreating process are
necessary or appropriate based on the
public comments received. However, as
discussed in section IV of this action,
we are updating emission factors from
GREET–2020 to GREET–2021,
consistent with our intention as
expressed in the Canola NPRM
preamble. Further information on our
lifecycle analysis is available in the
Canola NPRM preamble 15 and the
docket for this rulemaking.16
B. Other Comments Received on Our
Proposed Pathway Determinations
EPA received other comments on our
determination that renewable diesel, jet
fuel, naphtha, LPG, and heating oil meet
the 50 percent GHG reduction threshold
required for advanced biofuel and BBD,
but these comments did not directly
address our lifecycle analysis of the
proposed canola oil pathways. These
comments are summarized below.
Several commenters expressed
general support for the finalization of
our proposed determination.
Commenters associated with the canola
production and processing industries
expressed an ability to provide
feedstock to the biofuel industry to
produce fuels under the proposed
canola oil pathways.17 Commenters
argued that approval of these pathways
would provide several economic and
societal benefits, including supporting
rural economies,18 reducing U.S. GHG
emissions,19 providing greater feedstock
diversity to the biofuel industry
(particularly for renewable diesel and jet
fuel),20 and reducing reliance on
15 See
87 FR 22826–40.
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845.
17 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0052, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0053,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0055.
18 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0053, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0055,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0068.
19 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0053, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0054,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0055, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0062, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0066,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0068.
20 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0054, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0055,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0057, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0062, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0065,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0068.
16 See
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
imported petroleum.21 Commenters also
stated that the lack of a renewable diesel
pathway in particular has been an
impediment to the canola industry and
that approval of this pathway would
provide a more level playing field with
other renewable diesel feedstocks.22
Several commenters supported our
proposed determination that no invasive
species-related risk management
measures are appropriate in the context
of these canola oil pathways. The
Minnesota Canola Council stated in
their comments that ‘‘[c]anola has been
grown throughout the U.S. for decades
without posing invasiveness
concerns’’.23 Other comments
addressing the topic of canola
invasiveness potential concurred with
this statement.24 We did not receive
comment suggesting that canola has any
significant potential to become invasive
in the United States, nor did any
commenters suggest that risk
management measures would be
appropriate for these canola oil
pathways.
Airlines for America provided
comments observing that EPA’s
proposed revisions to the RFS
regulations included certain minor
technical errors.25 Specifically,
according to the proposed regulations
included in the Canola NPRM, the term
‘‘Distillers corn oil’’ would be deleted
and replaced with ‘‘Non-food grade corn
oil’’ and ‘‘Commingled distillers corn oil
and sorghum oil’’ would be deleted
entirely from the feedstock column in
row H. These changes were
unintentional errors. Airlines for
America acknowledged in their
comments that these errors were likely
unintentional and requested that EPA
clarify in the preamble of the final rule
that this is the case. We clarify here that
these proposed changes were in fact
unintentional errors. EPA is not
finalizing these changes to the
regulations.
EPA received comments from the Pet
Food Institute (PFI) opposing the
proposed pathway on the grounds that
approving these canola oil-based
pathways would create additional
financial hardship for PFI’s member
companies, for whom vegetable oils are
21 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0062, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0070.
22 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0055, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0066,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0069.
23 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–
0845–0053.
24 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0055, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0063,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0066, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0072.
25 See Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–
0845–0065.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Dec 01, 2022
Jkt 259001
73959
an important product input. In their
comments, PFI observed that prices for
vegetable- and animal-based fats, oils,
and greases (FOG) are presently high in
2022. They argued that approving these
pathways would create additional
upward pressure on FOG prices and
reduce FOG availability for their
member companies.26 These comments
mirrored similar comments submitted
by PFI on a separate recent RFS
rulemaking, namely the Proposed RFS
Standards for 2020, 2021, and 2022.27
EPA’s Response to Comment (RTC)
document associated with that
rulemaking addresses these comments
in the broader context of RFS program
impacts on FOG availability and prices,
inclusive of impacts attributable to
canola oil-based fuels.28 As was
discussed in this earlier RTC document,
EPA recognizes that prices for these
FOG commodities have been relatively
high in 2022. However, we also note
that several companies, including both
renewable diesel producers and other
parties, have already begun to respond
to this price signal by announcing
investment in increased vegetable oil
refining capacity.29 Thus, we believe
that the market is adjusting to supply
the necessary volumes of refined
vegetable oil to both the biofuel and
food markets, and we do expect that
both human and animal food producers
will be able to acquire the refined
vegetable oil they need in 2022 and
future years. In addition, aggregate
demand for vegetable oil-based fuels
under the RFS program is primarily a
function of the annual Renewable
Volume Obligations (RVOs), not any
individual pathway approval. To the
extent that any FOG price impacts may
be associated with demand created by
the RFS program, EPA believes such
impacts would be associated with the
decisions about the levels at which
RVOs are set, not approvals of
individual fuel pathways. PFI does not
present evidence that approving
additional fuel pathways in and of itself
will cause a direct increase in overall
consumption of biofuels under the RFS
program or cause an increase in FOG
prices and we do not believe such
outcomes will result from this action.
Additionally, several commenters on
the Canola NPRM argued the opposite,
i.e., that approval of these pathways is
likely to create additional flexibility for
biofuel producers, increase economic
efficiency, and reduce prices.30 In
general, we agree that creating
additional flexibility under the RFS
program is likely to, if anything, reduce
feedstock prices.
Finally, CAA section 211(o)(1)
contains the exclusive considerations
for evaluating whether a fuel qualifies as
BBD or advanced biofuel. As further
explained in the response to comments
regarding the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) below, the statute provides that
EPA consider whether the fuel meets
the definition of renewable fuel
(produced from renewable biomass and
used to replace or reduce the quantity
of fossil fuel present in a transportation
fuel), whether it provides the qualifying
lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction as
compared to baseline petroleum fuel,
and whether the biomass is coprocessed with petroleum feedstocks
(see CAA section 211(o)(1)(D)). The
statutory definitions and scheme leave
EPA no discretion to decline to qualify
a biofuel as BBD or advanced biofuel
under the RFS program based on
additional considerations that are not
identified in the statute, such as price
impacts on canola-oil feedstocks. These
factors, again, represent the full range of
considerations that EPA is authorized to
consider in determining whether a fuel
qualifies as BBD or advanced biofuel. In
light of this carefully constrained
statutory scheme, EPA is without
authority to alter this rule based on
vegetable oil price considerations, and
EPA has no discretion to deny approval
of this pathway if the statutory criteria
are met. As noted above, to the extent
any FOG price impacts may be
associated with demand created by the
RFS program, we believe such impacts
would be associated with decisions
made about the levels at which the
RVOs are set, not approvals of
individual fuel pathways. Thus, we
consider PFI’s comments outside the
scope of this action.
EPA received comments from the
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
opposing our proposed determination
on the grounds that approval of this
pathway would increase the production
of canola to meet new biofuel demands,
which would in turn allegedly cause
harmful effects for a least five species 31
26 Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–
0077.
27 86 FR 72436–501. PFI’s comments are available
on the docket for this rulemaking, Docket No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2021–0324–0453.
28 See Section 4.2, Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) Program: RFS Annual Rules—Response to
Comments, EPA–420–R–22–009, June 2022.
29 Id.
30 See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0054, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0055,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0057, EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0845–0062, EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0065,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–0068.
31 The comments identify these species as the
Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), the
Whooping Crane (Grus americana), the Dakota
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
Continued
02DER1
73960
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
listed under the ESA. CBD argues that
these alleged effects would cross the
‘‘may effect’’ and/or ‘‘likely to adversely
affect’’ thresholds relevant to ESA
considerations and thus trigger
consultation requirements under the
ESA and its implementing regulations.
They state that EPA’s approval of the
proposed canola oil pathways
represents a discretionary programmatic
action. On this basis, CBD argues EPA
must therefore consult with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service
(hereinafter collectively referred to as
‘‘the Services’’) under section 7 of ESA
before finalizing these canola oil
pathways.
Contrary to CBD’s assertions, for this
action, we find that EPA lacks
discretion to disapprove this pathway
petition on the basis of impacts to listed
species or designated critical habitat of
such species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA
requires federal agencies, in
consultation with one or both of the
Services, to ensure that actions they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of federally listed endangered
or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat of such
species.32 Under relevant implementing
regulations and case law, section 7(a)(2)
applies only to actions where there is
discretionary federal involvement or
control.33
In Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme
Court evaluated a claim that EPA was
required to engage in section 7
consultation in the context of its
approval of a state permitting program
under the Clean Water Act (CWA). In
that case, the Court held that when a
Federal agency is required by statute to
undertake a particular action without
considering species impacts, there is no
relevant agency discretion, and thus the
requirements of ESA section 7(a)(2) do
not apply.34 With regard to EPA’s
transfer of CWA permitting authority to
a State, the relevant CWA provision
specified that EPA ‘‘shall approve’’ a
state permitting program if a list of CWA
statutory criteria are met. The Court
found that the relevant CWA program
approval criteria did not include
consideration of endangered or
threatened species and stated that
‘‘[n]othing in the text of [the relevant
Skipper (Hesperia dacotae), the Western Prairie
Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) and the
Poweshiek Skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek).
32 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2).
33 50 CFR 402.03; National Ass’n of Home
Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 127 S. Ct. 2518
(2007) (Defenders of Wildlife).
34 Defenders of Wildlife at 2536.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Dec 01, 2022
Jkt 259001
CWA provision] authorizes EPA to
consider the protection of threatened or
endangered species as an end in itself
when evaluating [an] application’’ to
transfer a permitting program to a
State.35 Accordingly, the Court held that
the CWA required EPA to approve the
state’s permitting program if the
statutory criteria were met; those criteria
did not include the consideration of
ESA-protected species; and thus,
consistent with 50 CFR 402.03, the
nondiscretionary action to transfer CWA
permitting authority to the state did not
trigger ESA section 7 consultation
requirements.
Similar to the CWA program approval
provision at issue in Defenders of
Wildlife, the CAA contains detailed
provisions specifying the parameters of
fuels that qualify under this regulatory
program.36 None of those provisions
provide EPA the discretion to modify its
evaluation of potential qualifying fuels
based on extra-statutory criteria. Of
relevance here, the CAA includes
detailed definitions of the terms
‘‘advanced biofuel’’ and ‘‘biomass-based
diesel,’’ and those definitions do not
allow for consideration of impacts to
threatened or endangered species in this
action.
Advanced biofuel is defined as
‘‘renewable fuel, other than ethanol
derived from corn starch, that has
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as
determined by the Administrator, after
notice and opportunity for comment,
that are at least 50 percent less than
baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions.’’ 37 This definition includes
defined terms within it, including the
terms ‘‘renewable fuel,’’ (‘‘[f]uel that is
produced from renewable biomass and
that is used to replace or reduce the
quantity of fossil fuel present in a
transportation fuel’’), ‘‘baseline lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions’’ (‘‘average
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions . . .
for gasoline or diesel . . . sold or
distributed as transportation fuel in
2005’’), and ‘‘lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions’’. The term ‘‘lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions’’ means the
aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas
emissions (including direct emissions
and significant indirect emissions such
as significant emissions from land use
changes), as determined by the
Administrator, related to the full fuel
lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and
feedstock production and distribution,
from feedstock generation or extraction
through the distribution and delivery
and use of the finished fuel to the
at 2537.
U.S.C. 7545(o)(1).
37 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(B).
ultimate consumer, where the mass
values for all greenhouse gases are
adjusted to account for their relative
global warming potential.38
Thus, in determining if a fuel
qualifies as advanced biofuel, EPA must
consider whether it meets the definition
of renewable fuel—that is, whether it is
made from ‘‘renewable biomass’’ as
defined in the statute and is ‘‘used to
replace or reduce the quantity of fossil
fuel present in transportation fuel.’’ EPA
must also consider whether a fuel is
made from corn starch, and whether it
satisfies the requirement that it achieve
a 50 percent lifecycle GHG emissions
reduction as compared to baseline
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.
These factors represent the full range of
considerations that EPA is authorized to
consider in determining whether a fuel
qualifies as advanced biofuel; it follows
that EPA is not authorized to consider
impacts to threatened or endangered
species in determining what fuels
qualify as advanced biofuels under the
CAA. In light of this carefully
constrained statutory scheme, EPA is
without authority to alter this rule based
on listed species considerations and is
under no obligation to consult with the
Services under section 7(a) of the ESA
with respect to the advanced biofuel
pathways established in this action that
utilize canola oil feedstock to produce
renewable diesel. EPA has no discretion
to deny approval of this pathway if the
statutory criteria are met.
The same is true with respect to the
pathways approved in this action for the
production of BBD from canola oil. The
term biomass-based diesel is defined in
the CAA as renewable fuel that is
biodiesel as defined in section 13220(f)
of this title and that has lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions . . . that are
at least 50 percent less than the baseline
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.
Notwithstanding the preceding
sentence, renewable fuel derived from
co-processing biomass with a petroleum
feedstock shall be advanced biofuel if it
meets the requirements of [42 U.S.C.
7545(o)(1)(B)], but is not biomass-based
diesel.39
The term ‘‘biodiesel’’ is defined in 42
U.S.C. 13220(f) to mean ‘‘a diesel fuel
substitute produced from nonpetroleum
renewable resources that meets the
registration requirements for fuels and
fuel additives established by the
Environmental Protection Agency under
section 211 of the Clean Air Act [42
U.S.C. 7545]’’ and ‘‘includes biodiesel
derived from—(i) animal wastes,
including poultry fats and poultry
35 Id.
36 42
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
38 42
39 42
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(J), (H).
U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(D).
02DER1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
wastes, and other waste materials; or (ii)
municipal solid waste and sludges and
oils derived from wastewater and the
treatment of wastewater.’’ Thus, in
evaluating whether a fuel qualifies as
BBD, EPA is authorized to consider only
whether the fuel meets the definition of
renewable fuel (made from renewable
biomass and used to replace or reduce
the quantity of fossil fuel present in a
transportation fuel), whether it provides
a qualifying lifecycle GHG reduction as
compared to baseline petroleum fuel,
whether the biomass is co-processed
with petroleum feedstocks, and whether
it meets the registration requirements
for fuels and fuel additives established
via rulemaking by EPA. These factors,
again, represent the full range of
considerations that EPA is authorized to
consider in determining whether a fuel
qualifies as BBD; it follows that EPA is
not authorized to consider impacts to
threatened or endangered species in
determining what fuels qualify as BBD
under the CAA. In light of this carefully
constrained statutory scheme, EPA is
without authority to alter this rule based
on listed species considerations and is
under no obligation to consult with the
Services under section 7(a) of the ESA
with respect to the advanced biofuel
pathways established in this action that
utilize canola oil feedstock to produce
BBD. EPA has no discretion to deny
approval of this pathway if the statutory
criteria are met.
The action EPA is taking today is to
determine that renewable diesel, jet
fuel, heating oil, naphtha, and LPG
produced from canola oil via a
hydrotreating process meet the
applicable statutory requirements and
thus qualify as renewable fuels under
the RFS program. EPA is not
establishing volume requirements,
which would require the use of
renewable fuel of various quantities and
types (without requiring any particular
type of renewable fuel). EPA is currently
engaged in consultation with the
Services on renewable fuel standards
and will consider the future use of
canola oil under the RFS program in
that context. As discussed in response
to comments from PFI, it is the RFS
standards that could impact demand for
advanced biofuel and biomass-based
diesel; this pathway approval simply
provides an additional opportunity and
flexibility that renewable fuel producers
may choose to adopt. Additionally,
through the ongoing consultation
process, EPA will consider any impacts
on species and designated critical
habitat as a result of our action setting
RFS standards, including any impacts
associated with the use of canola oil to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Dec 01, 2022
Jkt 259001
produce renewable fuel within the RFS
program, and will also consider any
appropriate responses.
III. Definition of Canola/Rapeseed Oil
EPA received comments on its
proposed definition of ‘‘canola/rapeseed
oil.’’ Joint comments from three
Canadian canola industry organizations
expressed that they believe ‘‘canola and
rapeseed are well understood crops in
the United States’’ and that, therefore,
they ‘‘do not believe definitions are
necessary.’’ 40 However, these
commenters also stated that they ‘‘do
not necessarily take issue with the
proposed definitions, which [they]
believe identify the key species being
used for canola production in Canada
today, so long as EPA makes clear that
it does not intend to impose additional
requirements on farmers or feedstock
providers and that these terms are only
intended to be descriptors to distinguish
canola and rapeseed based on the
distinct treatment of these crops in the
U.S.’’ 41 The USCA expressed similar
opinions in their comments. While they
believe the relevant market participants
fully understand the meaning of ‘‘canola
oil,’’ and that, therefore, no definition in
the regulations is necessary, USCA also
expressed that they do not oppose the
addition of this definition to the
regulations.42
To clarify, EPA has not proposed, nor
are we finalizing, any new registration,
recordkeeping, or reporting
requirements associated with
implementing the canola oil-based
pathways or our new definition of
canola/rapeseed oil. We are including
this definition in the regulations to
provide clarity regarding which
vegetable oil products qualify under this
pathway. This intent is well-aligned
with that described by the commenters.
We are finalizing the definition largely
as proposed, with one minor, clerical
edit for readability.
IV. Analysis of Lifecycle GHG
Emissions
A. Overview of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
Analysis
For the proposed rule, we evaluated
the lifecycle GHG emissions of
producing renewable diesel and other
biofuels from canola oil through a
hydrotreating process. We described our
methodology for conducting this
evaluation, the assumptions and
scenarios evaluated using this
40 Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–
0066.
41 Id.
42 Docket Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845–
0072.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73961
methodology, and the results of our
analysis. We used the same biofuel
lifecycle analysis methodology and
modeling framework developed for the
March 2010 RFS2 rule, which was
adopted after an extensive peer review
and public comment process. This
methodology was developed to estimate
‘‘lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’’ as
defined in CAA section 211(o)(1)(H).
The same methodology and modeling
framework were subsequently used for
the September 2010 Canola Oil Rule.43
The components of this methodology
generally involve the use of agricultural
modeling to estimate emissions from
land use change, crop production,
livestock, and rice methane, as well as
application of coefficients and
assumptions from the Greenhouse
Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy
use in Technologies (GREET) model 44
and other sources to evaluate emissions
associated with feedstock and fuel
transport, processing, and use.
In general, this methodology also
involves using two agricultural sector
models, FASOM and the FAPRI–CARD
model, to estimate U.S. and non-U.S.
GHG emissions impacts, respectively.
Applying our methodology in the
analysis conducted for the Canola
NPRM, we modeled and evaluated a
hypothetical canola oil demand shock
scenario to estimate changes in
agricultural production and land use
and associated GHG emissions
associated with the biofuel pathways
under consideration. In the demand
shock scenario modeled for our Canola
NPRM analysis, U.S. domestic
consumption of canola oil-based fuels
was assumed to increase by some
amount relative to the volume of U.S.
domestic consumption in a reference
scenario.
This methodology also includes
estimating GHG emissions associated
with fuel production, distribution and
use based on data from GREET and
other sources. All of these GHG
emissions estimates are added together
and divided by the change in the
amount of biofuel produced in the
scenarios evaluated to estimate the
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
fuel produced through the evaluated
pathway, in terms of carbon dioxideequivalent emissions per megajoule (MJ)
of fuel produced.
43 For information about our 2010 methodology
and analysis see section 2 of the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) for the March 2010 RFS2 rule and the
associated lifecycle results (Docket Item No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2005–0161–3173).
44 See documentation and description available
from Argonne National Lab at https://greet.es.
anl.gov.
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
73962
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
We stated in section II.C.1 of the
Canola NPRM that we would update
emissions factor assumptions from
GREET–2020 to GREET–2021 for the
final rule. We received no public
comment on this statement or our
intention to update to GREET–2021 for
the final rule. We have made these
updates for the final rule and describe
the impacts of these updates below.
Other than updating particular
emissions factors based on GREET–2021
as we committed to do in the proposed
rule, we are finalizing our lifecycle GHG
analysis as proposed. Detailed
information and discussion regarding
the other components of our
methodology is available in the Canola
NPRM preamble 45 and the docket for
this rulemaking.46 We summarize the
results of our updated lifecycle analysis
in section IV.C below.
emissions factors for the production and
use of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, LPG,
coal, gaseous hydrogen, electricity,
fertilizer, herbicide, and insecticide.
The emissions factors increased for
gasoline, diesel, natural gas, LPG,
fertilizer, and pesticide.48 The
emissions factors decreased for gaseous
hydrogen, electricity, limestone, and
herbicide. Overall, these updates
changed our lifecycle GHG estimates by
less than two percent. For canola oil
renewable diesel, we now estimate GHG
reductions of 64–70 percent relative to
the baseline, compared to 63–69 percent
in the proposal. For canola oil-based
naphtha and LPG we estimate GHG
reductions of 63–69 percent, unchanged
from the proposal. For canola oil-based
renewable jet fuel we estimate GHG
reductions of 58–67 percent, compared
to 59–67 percent in the proposal.
B. Data Updates Based on GREET–2021
C. Summary of Analysis of Lifecycle
GHG Emissions
Based on the lifecycle analysis
methodology developed for the March
2010 RFS2 rule, our analysis uses data
from the GREET model on the emissions
per unit of energy or mass associated
with particular inputs to the product
lifecycle (‘‘emissions factors’’). These
emissions factors are the estimates from
GREET associated with using inputs
such as diesel, electricity, and natural
gas. In the proposal we said that we
would update these data based on
GREET–2021, and that we did not
expect these updates to have a large
enough effect on the lifecycle GHG
emissions estimates to change our GHG
reduction threshold determinations for
the proposed canola oil-based fuel
pathways. We have made the data
updates based on GREET–2021 and as
expected these updates have a relatively
small effect on our lifecycle GHG
estimates.47
The GREET data updates were
applied to the following elements:
Table IV.C–1 reports our estimates of
the lifecycle GHG emissions associated
with renewable diesel produced from
canola oil through a hydrotreating
process, and the corresponding percent
reduction relative to the petroleum
baseline. Three sets of estimates are
presented for canola oil renewable
diesel. The emissions categories are
aggregated to simplify the presentation
of the table. Domestic and international
agricultural emissions include
emissions associated with changes in
crop and livestock production.
Feedstock processing (i.e., canola seed
crushing) and feedstock seed and oil
transport emissions are reported
together. Downstream and use includes
emissions from fuel distribution and
fuel use. Land use change emissions
include emissions from domestic and
international land use changes,
including both emissions from direct
conversion to cropland and market-
mediated effects such as foregone
potential land carbon sequestration. As
discussed in section IV.B, we have made
minor updates relative to the proposed
rule by incorporating more recent
emissions factors from the GREET–2021
model. These updates changed our GHG
estimates in the tables below for the
feedstock transport & crushing, fuel
production, and downstream & use
lifecycle stages. All other estimates
remain unchanged from the NPRM.
Our evaluation considers uncertainty
in international land use change
emissions based on the methodology
used for the March 2010 RFS2 rule. The
table includes a range of land use
change estimates based on our analysis
of this uncertainty. The first column
includes results based on our average
estimate of international land use
change GHG emissions. We also report
results for the low and high ends of our
95 percent confidence interval for
international land use change
emissions. Our calculations include
ranges for domestic agriculture,
international agriculture, feedstock
transport and crushing, and fuel
production are based on estimated
ranges in the yield of finished fuel (in
MJ of fuel produced per pound of canola
oil feedstock). However, to simplify the
presentation of the results we report the
average of the eight estimates.49
Another update is that the analysis for
the March 2010 RFS2 rule used 100-year
global warming potential (GWP) values
from the IPCC Second Assessment
Report. The analysis for this proposed
rule uses 100-year GWP values from the
most recent IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report.50 Based on these updates, the
GWP for methane increased from 21 to
30, and the GWP for nitrous oxide
decreased from 310 to 265. This update
was described in section II.C.1 of the
NPRM; we did not receive public
comment on this update.
TABLE IV.C–1–LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH RENEWABLE DIESEL PRODUCED FROM CANOLA OIL
THROUGH A HYDROTREATING PROCESS
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
[In grams of CO2 equivalent per MJ]
Emissions category
2005 Diesel
baseline
Canola oil renewable diesel
Domestic Agriculture ........................................................................................
International Agriculture ...................................................................................
Feedstock Transport & Crushing .....................................................................
Fuel Production ................................................................................................
18
........................
........................
........................
¥2.3
¥0.3
6.9
12.4
45 See
87 FR 22826–40.
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0845.
47 The lifecycle GHG calculations including the
updated GREET emissions factors are included in
a spreadsheet available in the docket for this action.
46 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Dec 01, 2022
Jkt 259001
48 We corrected an underestimate in the proposed
rule of the GHG emissions associated with crude oil
extraction.
49 Using the average or median values results in
the same percent GHG reduction relative to the
petroleum baseline. We are not taking a position on
whether it is more appropriate to use mean or
median values in other contexts.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis
Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)].
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
73963
TABLE IV.C–1–LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH RENEWABLE DIESEL PRODUCED FROM CANOLA OIL
THROUGH A HYDROTREATING PROCESS—Continued
[In grams of CO2 equivalent per MJ]
0.4
Downstream & Use ..........................................................................................
Land Use Change Estimate ............................................................................
Land Use Change ............................................................................................
Net Emissions ..................................................................................................
% GHG Reduction Relative to Baseline ..........................................................
In many cases, when vegetable oils
are hydrotreated to produce renewable
diesel, there are co-product outputs of
naphtha, LPG, and jet fuel. The GHG
estimates for these co-product fuels
differ slightly from the renewable diesel
estimates presented in the table above
based on differences in how they are
transported to end users and in end use
emissions. The results for naphtha and
LPG, based on the mean international
land use change estimates, are
summarized in Table IV.C–2.
75
........................
........................
93
........................
Mean
13.8
30.9
67%
Low
3.2
20.2
78%
High
26.0
43.1
53%
heating oil if market conditions change
substantially (e.g., if heating oil prices
were to exceed diesel prices net of
government incentives). The GHG
emissions associated with heating oil
are therefore very similar to renewable
[In grams of CO2 equivalent per MJ]
diesel, although there may be small
differences in GHG emissions associated
Naphtha
LPG
with fuel distribution and use.
Lifecycle GHG Emissions
31.4
31.4
As discussed in the NPRM,51 canola
Percent Reduction Reloil hydrotreating processes that are set
ative to Baseline .........
I 67% 66% up to maximize jet fuel output require
more processing and hydrogen,
We do not present separate results of
resulting in greater lifecycle GHG
heating oil as it is not reported as an
emissions. The range of lifecycle GHG
output for any of the hydrotreating
estimates for canola oil renewable jet
processes evaluated. However,
fuel are reported in Table IV.C–3.
renewable diesel could be used as
TABLE IV.C–2—LIFECYCLE GHG
EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NAPHTHA AND LPG PRODUCED FROM
CANOLA
OIL
THROUGH
A
HYDROTREATING PROCESS
TABLE IV.C–3—LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH RENEWABLE JET FUEL PRODUCED FROM CANOLA OIL
THROUGH A HYDROTREATING PROCESS
[in grams of CO2 equivalent per MJ]
Emissions category
2005 diesel
baseline
Canola oil renewable jet fuel
Domestic Agriculture ........................................................................................
International Agriculture ...................................................................................
Feedstock Transport & Crushing .....................................................................
Fuel Production ................................................................................................
18
........................
........................
........................
¥2.3
¥0.3
6.8
15.4
0.4
Downstream & Use ..........................................................................................
Land Use Change Estimate ............................................................................
Land Use Change (LUC) .................................................................................
Net Emissions ..................................................................................................
% GHG Reduction Relative to Baseline ..........................................................
75
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
V. Summary
Based on our GHG lifecycle
evaluation described in the NPRM, we
find that renewable diesel, jet fuel,
naphtha, LPG, and heating oil produced
from canola oil via a hydrotreating
process all meet the 50 percent GHG
reduction threshold. Based on this
finding, we determine that renewable
diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil produced
from canola oil are eligible for BBD (D–
code 4) RINs if they are produced
through a hydrotreating process that
does not co-process renewable biomass
and petroleum, and for advanced
51 See
93
biofuel (D–code 5) RINs if they are
produced through a process that does
co-process renewable biomass and
petroleum. Based on this finding, we
also determine that naphtha and LPG
production from canola oil through a
hydrotreating process are eligible for
advanced biofuel (D–code 5) RINs.
Based on these determinations, we are
adding these pathways to Table 1 of 40
CFR 80.1426.
We are also finalizing our proposed
definition of ‘‘canola/rapeseed oil’’ and
adding this definition to 40 CFR
80.1401.
........................
Mean
13.7
33.8
63%
17:31 Dec 01, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
High
25.9
46
50%
VI. Statutory & Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory
action that was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any changes made in response
87 FR 22838 for details.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Low
3.1
23.2
75%
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
73964
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The GHG
lifecycle analysis conducted for this
proposed determination, ‘‘Renewable
Fuel Standard Program: Canola Oil
Pathways to Renewable Diesel, Jet Fuel,
Naphtha, Liquefied Petroleum Gas and
Heating Oil,’’ is available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number
2060–0725. This action creates new
pathways by which to generate RINs for
renewable fuels under the RFS program
but creates no new information
collection requirements for these
additional pathways.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action does not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this
determination, EPA concludes that the
impact of concern for this rule is any
significant adverse economic impact on
small entities and that the agency is
certifying that this rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if
the rule would have no net burden. This
rule enables canola oil producers and
producers of biofuels from canola oil to
participate in the RFS program if they
choose to do so to obtain economic
benefits. We have therefore concluded
that this action has no net regulatory
burden for all directly regulated small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It does 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Dec 01, 2022
Jkt 259001
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. This rule affects only
producers of canola oil and producers of
biofuels made from canola oil. 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 Executive Order 13045
as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern environmental
health or safety risks that EPA has
reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This rule enables canola oil producers
and producers of biofuels from canola
oil to participate in the RFS program if
they choose to do so. This may create
additional supplies of energy,
potentially leading to positive impacts
on the energy system. This rule would
create no new burdens on the
distribution or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
EPA believes that this action is not
subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994) because it does
not establish an environmental health or
safety standard. This rule gives
renewable fuel producers the ability to
generate credits under the RFS program
for the production of specified biofuels
from canola oil. This rule does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment by
applicable air quality standards. EPA
recognizes that the RFS program as a
whole may have impacts related to
environmental justice. These potential
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
impacts are discussed further in the RFS
Annual Rules for 2020, 2021, and 2022,
published in June 2022.52 Future actions
to set biofuel volume requirements may
take into consideration the availability
of this renewable fuel pathway for the
production of biofuel from canola oil
and thus may affect GHG emissions, air
quality, water or soil quality, or fuel and
food prices.53 However, this action does
not modify biofuel volume requirements
and thus EPA believes that the final rule
to approve a new pathway, in and of
itself, will not affect human health or
the environment.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Statutory Authority
Statutory authority for this action
comes from CAA sections 114, 208, 211,
and 301.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel
additives, Gasoline, Imports, Oil
imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 80
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, 7521, 7542,
7545, and 7601(a).
Subpart M—Renewable Fuel Standard
2. Amend § 80.1401 by adding in
alphabetical order a definition for
‘‘Canola/Rapeseed oil’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 80.1401
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Canola/Rapeseed oil means either of
the following:
(1) Canola oil is oil from the plants
Brassica napus, Brassica rapa, Brassica
juncea, Sinapis alba, or Sinapis arvensis
and which typically contains less than
52 See 87 FR 39600–77 and Chapter 8, Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: RFS Annual Rules—
Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA–420–R–22–008,
June 2022.
53 Id.
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
73965
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 231 / Friday, December 2, 2022 / Rules and Regulations
2 percent erucic acid in the component
fatty acids obtained.
(2) Rapeseed oil is the oil obtained
from the plants Brassica napus, Brassica
rapa, or Brassica juncea.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 80.1426 How are RINs generated and
assigned to batches of renewable fuel?
3. Amend § 80.1426 in table 1 to
§ 80.1426 by revising the entries ‘‘G’’,
‘‘H’’, and ‘‘I’’ to read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 1 TO § 80.1426—APPLICABLE D CODES FOR EACH FUEL PATHWAY FOR USE IN GENERATING RINS
Fuel type
*
G .......................
H .......................
I .........................
*
Biodiesel, renewable
diesel, jet
fuel, and
heating oil.
Biodiesel, renewable
diesel, jet
fuel, and
heating oil.
Naphtha, LPG
*
*
*
Production process requirements
*
*
Canola/Rapeseed oil ...........................................
*
*
*
One of the following: Transesterification using
natural gas or biomass for process energy, or
Hydrotreating; excludes processes that coprocess renewable biomass and petroleum.
Soy bean oil; Oil from annual covercrops; Oil
from algae grown photosynthetically; Biogenic
waste oils/fats/greases; Camelina sativa oil;
Distillers corn oil; Distillers sorghum oil; Commingled distillers corn oil and sorghum oil;
Canola/Rapeseed oil.
Camelina sativa oil; Distillers sorghum oil; Distillers corn oil; Commingled distillers corn oil
and distillers sorghum oil; Canola/Rapeseed
oil.
One of the following: Transesterification with or
without
esterification
pre-treatment,
Esterification, or Hydrotreating; includes only
processes that co-process renewable biomass
and petroleum.
5
Hydrotreating .......................................................
5
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2022–26250 Filed 12–1–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 123
[EPA–HQ–OW–2022–0834; FRL–10123–02–
OW]
RIN 2040–AG27
NPDES Small MS4 Urbanized Area
Clarification
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to clarify its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Stormwater Phase II regulations due to
recent changes made by the Census
Bureau. The changes to EPA’s
regulations are limited to clarifying that
the designation criteria for small
municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s), which have been used since the
promulgation of the regulations in 1999,
will remain the same. These
clarifications are necessary due to the
Census Bureau’s recent decision to
discontinue its practice of publishing
the location of ‘‘urbanized areas’’ along
with the 2020 Census and future
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Dec 01, 2022
D–
Code
Feedstock
Jkt 259001
*
*
censuses. The clarification in this direct
final rule replaces the term ‘‘urbanized
area’’ in the Phase II regulations with
the phrase ‘‘urban areas with a
population of at least 50,000,’’ which is
the Census Bureau’s longstanding
definition of the term urbanized areas.
This change will allow NPDES
permitting authorities to use 2020
Census and future Census data in a
manner that is consistent with existing
longstanding regulatory practice.
Because this clarification maintains the
current scope of which entities are
regulated as small MS4s, it is not
expected to generate opposition, and
EPA is publishing the clarification in
the Federal Register as a direct final
rule. As is EPA’s practice for direct final
rules, EPA is also publishing a parallel
proposed rulemaking with the same
changes included in this direct final
rule if the Agency receives adverse
comments.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 2,
2023 without further notice, unless EPA
receives adverse comment by January 3,
2023. Comments on this rule must be
received on or before January 3, 2023. If
EPA receives adverse comment, the
Agency will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2022–0834 to https://
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
4
*
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. for this
rule. Comments received may be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Written Comments’’ heading of the
Public Participation section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Huddle, Water Permits Division
(MC4203), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington DC 20004; telephone
number: (202) 564–7932; email address:
huddle.heather@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is
publishing this rule without a prior
proposed rulemaking because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
action and anticipates no adverse
comment. This action is limited to
clarifying that EPA will retain the
existing threshold for automatic
designation of small MS4s for regulation
under the Phase II stormwater
permitting regulations. The threshold
for automatic designation was used
following the 2000 and 2010 Censuses
and is based on the MS4 being in an
urbanized area of 50,000 or more
people. This rule will maintain the
E:\FR\FM\02DER1.SGM
02DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73956-73965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26250]
[[Page 73956]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845; FRL-9075-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV55
Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Canola Oil Pathways to Renewable
Diesel, Jet Fuel, Naphtha, Liquefied Petroleum Gas, and Heating Oil
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA determines that renewable diesel, jet
fuel, heating oil, naphtha, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) produced
from canola/rapeseed oil via a hydrotreating process all meet the
lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction threshold of 50
percent required for advanced biofuels and biomass-based diesel (BBD)
under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Based on the analyses
described in the earlier notice of proposed rulemaking associated with
this action, EPA is adding these pathways to the list of approved
pathways in the RFS regulations, making them eligible to generate
Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), provided they satisfy the
other definitional and RIN generation criteria for renewable fuel
specified in the RFS regulations. EPA is also amending the RFS
regulations by adding a new definition of ``canola/rapeseed oil.''
DATES: This rule is effective on January 3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845. All documents are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Ramig, Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1372; email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this final rule are those involved
with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels,
including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as
biodiesel, heating oil, renewable diesel, naphtha, and LPG. Potentially
regulated categories include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS \1\ code affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................... 111120 Oilseed (except Soybean)
Farming.
Industry................... 324110 Petroleum refineries
(including importers).
Industry................... 325199 Other basic organic
chemical manufacturing.
Industry................... 424690 Chemical and allied
products merchant
wholesalers.
Industry................... 424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals.
Industry................... 424720 Petroleum and Petroleum
Products Merchant
Wholesalers.
Industry................... 454310 Other fuel dealers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated or
otherwise affected by this action. This table lists the types of
entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
affected. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action,
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the
referenced regulations. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Review and Response to Comments on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
A. Comments Received on Our Lifecycle Analysis
B. Other Comments Received on Our Proposed Pathway
Determinations
III. Definition of Canola/Rapeseed Oil
IV. Analysis of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
A. Overview of Lifecycle GHG Emissions Analysis
B. Data Updates Based on GREET-2021
C. Summary of Analysis of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
V. Summary
VI. Statutory & Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
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 Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
VII. Statutory Authority
I. Introduction
Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes the RFS
program, under which EPA sets annual percentage standards specifying
the total amount of renewable fuel, as well as three subcategories of
renewable fuel, that must be used to reduce or replace fossil fuel
present in transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. Non-exempt
renewable fuels must achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in
lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to a 2005 petroleum baseline.
Advanced biofuel and BBD must achieve at least a 50 percent reduction,
and cellulosic biofuel must achieve at least a 60 percent reduction.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, generally, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to having to meet the applicable lifecycle GHG
reduction requirements, a fuel may only generate RINs if it meets the
definitional and other criteria for renewable fuel (e.g., feedstock is
a qualifying source of
[[Page 73957]]
renewable biomass as defined in the regulations and used to reduce or
replace the quantity of fossil fuel present in transportation fuel,
heating oil, or jet fuel) in CAA section 211(o) and the RFS regulations
at 40 CFR part 80, subpart M.
Only fuels produced using pathways that EPA has approved as meeting
all applicable requirements are eligible to generate RINs. There are
three critical components of fuel pathways under the RFS program: (1)
fuel type; (2) feedstock; and (3) production process. Each approved
pathway is associated with a specific ``D code'' corresponding to
whether the fuel meets the requirements for renewable fuel, advanced
fuel, cellulosic fuel, or BBD.\2\ Since the formation of the RFS
program, EPA has periodically promulgated rules to add new pathways to
the regulations.\3\ In addition, EPA has approved facility-specific
pathways through the petition process in 40 CFR 80.1416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For additional information see: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/fuel-pathways-under-renewable-fuel-standard.
\3\ See, e.g., 83 FR 37735 (August 2, 2018) approving grain
sorghum oil pathways and 78 FR 41703 (July 11, 2013) approving giant
reed and Napier grass pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts
of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results
of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available
evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG
reduction threshold required under the CAA. Lifecycle analysis includes
an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle,
including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel
production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe
emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions,\4\ EPA's
lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect
emissions, such as those from land use changes (LUC) and agricultural
sector impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA conducted lifecycle GHG analyses for several combinations of
biofuel feedstocks, production processes, and fuels and promulgated
several fuel pathways as part of its March 26, 2010 RFS2 final rule (75
FR 14670) (the ``March 2010 RFS2 rule''). In the preamble to that final
rule, EPA indicated that it intended to add fuel pathways to the
regulations via further notice-and-comment rulemakings. EPA
subsequently completed a proposed assessment for canola oil biodiesel;
this proposed assessment was published in the Federal Register for
notice and comment on July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43522). This proposed
assessment evaluated the GHG emissions associated with biodiesel
produced from canola oil through a transesterification process. On
September 28, 2010, EPA published a rule finalizing our determination
that canola oil biodiesel meets the lifecycle GHG emissions reduction
threshold of 50 percent required by the CAA and added row G to Table 1
to 40 CFR 80.1426, making canola oil biodiesel produced through a
transesterification process eligible for BBD (D-code 4) RINs (75 FR
59622) (the ``September 2010 Canola Oil rule''). This final rule did
not include determinations for renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha,
LPG, or heating oil produced from canola oil via a hydrotreating
process.\5\ In the 2013 Pathways I final rule (78 FR 14190, March 5,
2013) (the ``2013 Pathways I rule''), EPA added rapeseed oil as a
feedstock in the existing pathway in row G for renewable fuel made from
canola oil because ``we had not intended the supplemental determination
to cover just those varieties or sources of rapeseed that are
identified as canola'' (78 FR 14214). In that same rule, for clarity
EPA also added ``heating oil'' to the rows in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426
that already included renewable diesel or biodiesel (78 FR 14201). As
in the 2013 Pathways I rule, in this action we are similarly adding new
pathways to Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for biofuels produced from
``canola/rapeseed oil'' but for simplicity we refer to both canola and
rapeseed as ``canola'' throughout this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Hydrotreating, the process used to produce the vast majority
of renewable diesel, consists of catalytic reactions in the presence
of hydrogen. This process produces a ``drop-in'' fuel with
properties virtually identical to petroleum diesel and distinct from
biodiesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2020, the United States Canola Association (USCA) submitted a
rulemaking petition to EPA requesting an evaluation of the GHG
emissions associated with renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha, LPG, and
heating oil produced from canola oil via a hydrotreating process, and a
determination of the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such
biofuels may be eligible.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Canola Association. (2020). Petition for Pathways for
Renewable Diesel from Canola Oil as ``Advanced Biofuel'' Under the
Renewable Fuel Standard Program. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the USCA petition, EPA conducted an analysis of the
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with these fuel pathways. In April
2022, we published this analysis as part of the notice of proposed
rulemaking (87 FR 22823, April 18, 2022) (the ``Canola NPRM'')
associated with this final rulemaking.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The full set of modeling results, post-processing
spreadsheets and other technical documents describing this analysis
are available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the Canola NPRM preamble, we estimated the
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the production of renewable
diesel, naphtha, LPG, and jet fuel via a hydrotreating process. The
Canola NPRM preamble discussed these estimates and our consideration of
uncertainty in the analysis. Based on this analysis, we proposed to
find that these biofuels meet the 50 percent GHG reduction threshold
required for advanced biofuel and BBD. In the Canola NPRM, we also
proposed a definition of ``canola/rapeseed oil'' to provide clarity
about which feedstocks would qualify under these proposed pathways.
In this final action, EPA is adding to Table 1 of 40 CFR 80.1426
pathways for the production of renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha,
LPG, and heating oil produced from canola oil via a hydrotreating
process, as proposed. Upon the effective date of this action, these
fuel pathways are eligible for either BBD (D-code 4) or advanced
biofuel (D-code 5) RINs, depending on the fuel type and whether they
are produced through a hydrotreating process that co-processes
renewable biomass with petroleum. We are also finalizing our proposed
definition of ``canola/rapeseed oil'' and adding this definition to 40
CFR 80.1401.
II. Review and Response to Comments on the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
A. Comments Received on Our Lifecycle Analysis
EPA requested comment on its lifecycle analysis of the GHG
emissions associated with renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha, LPG, and
heating oil produced from canola oil via a hydrotreating process.
Several commenters expressed support for our lifecycle analysis.
Commenters supported EPA's new modeling of canola oil-based fuels using
updated data on canola and canola products.\8\ Commenters also
expressed that EPA's updated modeling of international canola market
conditions better simulates and reflects the behavior of the historical
and current global canola trade, in particular the
[[Page 73958]]
dynamics between the U.S. and Canada.\9\ Commenters did not provide any
comments on this analysis that indicate it is unreasonable to rely on
it for this rulemaking, such as the presence of errors in the analysis,
the use of outdated data, or any other scientific deficiencies that
might require EPA to conduct new analysis before finalizing our
determination. Some commenters stated that EPA's analysis may be overly
conservative in the sense that, in the opinion of these commenters, our
analysis may overstate the GHG intensity of canola oil-based fuels.
Multiple commenters claimed that U.S. canola producers may be able to
expand canola production on fallow land or Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) land, or make changes to crop rotations, to provide additional
canola seed and oil for biofuel feedstock supply without the need for
cultivation of new crop area. Commenters argued that, for these reasons
EPA's estimated cropland change emissions impacts may be too high.\10\
However, these commenters did not provide data or information that
would support specific revisions in our modeling. Regardless, revising
our analysis in the manner suggested by these commenters would not
materially affect the results of our determination for these canola oil
pathways. Since we proposed to determine that the pathways in question
be approved to generate RINs under the most valuable renewable fuel
categories (i.e., the advanced biofuel and/or BBD pathways) for which
they are eligible, further reductions in LUC emissions, were a revised
analysis to find such a result, would lead to the same pathway
determination. Finally, commenters who made these points did not state
that revisions should be made to EPA's analysis before finalizing the
proposed pathways. Rather, these commenters instead uniformly supported
the finalization of EPA's analysis and determination as proposed. For
all of these reasons, we believe no revisions to our lifecycle analysis
are appropriate or necessary in response to these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0053, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0845-0055, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0057, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-
0066, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0068, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0069.
\9\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0066, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0845-0072.
\10\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0053, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0055, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0063, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0845-0066, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters supported our inclusion of pathways for fuels produced
from co-processing canola oil with petroleum feedstocks, i.e., co-
processed fuels.\11\ In their comments, Phillips 66 suggested
additional data sources about the emissions associated with co-
processing of canola oil via hydrotreating, which EPA could consider if
needed. However, neither Phillips 66 nor any other commenter who
addressed co-processing suggested that any revision of this aspect of
our analysis was needed. Further, revising our analysis to consider the
additional data provided by Phillips 66 would not materially affect the
results of our determination for these canola oil pathways. We believe
no revisions to our lifecycle analysis are appropriate or necessary in
response to these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Petroleum Institute (API) observed that lifecycle
analysis methodology was the focus of a recent EPA workshop on biofuel
GHG modeling.\12\ API expressed support for the efforts of EPA to
consider new science and data in the context of biofuel lifecycle
analysis. However, API also expressed that the scientific discussions
at this workshop should not necessitate any revisions to the analysis
conducted for the Canola NPRM. Rather, this commenter stated that any
such revisions should be considered in the future in the context of
more holistic re-examination of RFS pathways, so that they can be
applied consistently across all approved pathways.\13\ EPA did not
propose to apply a new lifecycle analysis methodology to canola oil,
and we are not doing so in this final rule. Any decisions EPA may make
about future lifecycle analyses and determinations are outside the
scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For information regarding this workshop, see Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0921.
\13\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposed rule we requested comment on our proposed use of an
energy allocation approach to evaluate co-products from hydrotreating
processes (87 FR 22838). We received two comments on this topic.\14\
One of the commenters said they agree with EPA's reasoning and support
the energy allocation approach taken. The other commenter did not
oppose EPA's use of energy allocation, but believes it is a
conservative approach that may not be appropriate in all cases. Based
on these comments, and the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are
retaining the proposed energy allocation approach to the evaluation of
the co-products from hydrotreating processes. Furthermore, for the
reasons discussed in the proposed rule, we believe that energy
allocation is generally the most appropriate approach for co-products
that may be used as transportation fuel. Unlike the displacement
approach, the allocation approach does not depend on which co-products
generate RINs (or for which producers request RIN eligibility), which
is subject to change based on market and regulatory conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0079 and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0845-0072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have determined that no changes to our proposed lifecycle
analysis of the GHG emissions associated with renewable diesel, jet
fuel, naphtha, LPG, and heating oil produced from canola oil via a
hydrotreating process are necessary or appropriate based on the public
comments received. However, as discussed in section IV of this action,
we are updating emission factors from GREET-2020 to GREET-2021,
consistent with our intention as expressed in the Canola NPRM preamble.
Further information on our lifecycle analysis is available in the
Canola NPRM preamble \15\ and the docket for this rulemaking.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 87 FR 22826-40.
\16\ See Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Other Comments Received on Our Proposed Pathway Determinations
EPA received other comments on our determination that renewable
diesel, jet fuel, naphtha, LPG, and heating oil meet the 50 percent GHG
reduction threshold required for advanced biofuel and BBD, but these
comments did not directly address our lifecycle analysis of the
proposed canola oil pathways. These comments are summarized below.
Several commenters expressed general support for the finalization
of our proposed determination. Commenters associated with the canola
production and processing industries expressed an ability to provide
feedstock to the biofuel industry to produce fuels under the proposed
canola oil pathways.\17\ Commenters argued that approval of these
pathways would provide several economic and societal benefits,
including supporting rural economies,\18\ reducing U.S. GHG
emissions,\19\ providing greater feedstock diversity to the biofuel
industry (particularly for renewable diesel and jet fuel),\20\ and
reducing reliance on
[[Page 73959]]
imported petroleum.\21\ Commenters also stated that the lack of a
renewable diesel pathway in particular has been an impediment to the
canola industry and that approval of this pathway would provide a more
level playing field with other renewable diesel feedstocks.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0052, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0053, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0055.
\18\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0053, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0055, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0068.
\19\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0053, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0054, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0055, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0845-0062, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0066, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0068.
\20\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0054, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0055, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0057, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0845-0062, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0065, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0068.
\21\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0062, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0070.
\22\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0055, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0066, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters supported our proposed determination that no
invasive species-related risk management measures are appropriate in
the context of these canola oil pathways. The Minnesota Canola Council
stated in their comments that ``[c]anola has been grown throughout the
U.S. for decades without posing invasiveness concerns''.\23\ Other
comments addressing the topic of canola invasiveness potential
concurred with this statement.\24\ We did not receive comment
suggesting that canola has any significant potential to become invasive
in the United States, nor did any commenters suggest that risk
management measures would be appropriate for these canola oil pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0053.
\24\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0055, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0063, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0066, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0845-0072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airlines for America provided comments observing that EPA's
proposed revisions to the RFS regulations included certain minor
technical errors.\25\ Specifically, according to the proposed
regulations included in the Canola NPRM, the term ``Distillers corn
oil'' would be deleted and replaced with ``Non-food grade corn oil''
and ``Commingled distillers corn oil and sorghum oil'' would be deleted
entirely from the feedstock column in row H. These changes were
unintentional errors. Airlines for America acknowledged in their
comments that these errors were likely unintentional and requested that
EPA clarify in the preamble of the final rule that this is the case. We
clarify here that these proposed changes were in fact unintentional
errors. EPA is not finalizing these changes to the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received comments from the Pet Food Institute (PFI) opposing
the proposed pathway on the grounds that approving these canola oil-
based pathways would create additional financial hardship for PFI's
member companies, for whom vegetable oils are an important product
input. In their comments, PFI observed that prices for vegetable- and
animal-based fats, oils, and greases (FOG) are presently high in 2022.
They argued that approving these pathways would create additional
upward pressure on FOG prices and reduce FOG availability for their
member companies.\26\ These comments mirrored similar comments
submitted by PFI on a separate recent RFS rulemaking, namely the
Proposed RFS Standards for 2020, 2021, and 2022.\27\ EPA's Response to
Comment (RTC) document associated with that rulemaking addresses these
comments in the broader context of RFS program impacts on FOG
availability and prices, inclusive of impacts attributable to canola
oil-based fuels.\28\ As was discussed in this earlier RTC document, EPA
recognizes that prices for these FOG commodities have been relatively
high in 2022. However, we also note that several companies, including
both renewable diesel producers and other parties, have already begun
to respond to this price signal by announcing investment in increased
vegetable oil refining capacity.\29\ Thus, we believe that the market
is adjusting to supply the necessary volumes of refined vegetable oil
to both the biofuel and food markets, and we do expect that both human
and animal food producers will be able to acquire the refined vegetable
oil they need in 2022 and future years. In addition, aggregate demand
for vegetable oil-based fuels under the RFS program is primarily a
function of the annual Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs), not any
individual pathway approval. To the extent that any FOG price impacts
may be associated with demand created by the RFS program, EPA believes
such impacts would be associated with the decisions about the levels at
which RVOs are set, not approvals of individual fuel pathways. PFI does
not present evidence that approving additional fuel pathways in and of
itself will cause a direct increase in overall consumption of biofuels
under the RFS program or cause an increase in FOG prices and we do not
believe such outcomes will result from this action. Additionally,
several commenters on the Canola NPRM argued the opposite, i.e., that
approval of these pathways is likely to create additional flexibility
for biofuel producers, increase economic efficiency, and reduce
prices.\30\ In general, we agree that creating additional flexibility
under the RFS program is likely to, if anything, reduce feedstock
prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0077.
\27\ 86 FR 72436-501. PFI's comments are available on the docket
for this rulemaking, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0324-0453.
\28\ See Section 4.2, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: RFS
Annual Rules--Response to Comments, EPA-420-R-22-009, June 2022.
\29\ Id.
\30\ See, e.g., Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0054, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0055, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0057, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0845-0062, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0065, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, CAA section 211(o)(1) contains the exclusive
considerations for evaluating whether a fuel qualifies as BBD or
advanced biofuel. As further explained in the response to comments
regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) below, the statute provides
that EPA consider whether the fuel meets the definition of renewable
fuel (produced from renewable biomass and used to replace or reduce the
quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel), whether it
provides the qualifying lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction as compared
to baseline petroleum fuel, and whether the biomass is co-processed
with petroleum feedstocks (see CAA section 211(o)(1)(D)). The statutory
definitions and scheme leave EPA no discretion to decline to qualify a
biofuel as BBD or advanced biofuel under the RFS program based on
additional considerations that are not identified in the statute, such
as price impacts on canola-oil feedstocks. These factors, again,
represent the full range of considerations that EPA is authorized to
consider in determining whether a fuel qualifies as BBD or advanced
biofuel. In light of this carefully constrained statutory scheme, EPA
is without authority to alter this rule based on vegetable oil price
considerations, and EPA has no discretion to deny approval of this
pathway if the statutory criteria are met. As noted above, to the
extent any FOG price impacts may be associated with demand created by
the RFS program, we believe such impacts would be associated with
decisions made about the levels at which the RVOs are set, not
approvals of individual fuel pathways. Thus, we consider PFI's comments
outside the scope of this action.
EPA received comments from the Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD) opposing our proposed determination on the grounds that approval
of this pathway would increase the production of canola to meet new
biofuel demands, which would in turn allegedly cause harmful effects
for a least five species \31\
[[Page 73960]]
listed under the ESA. CBD argues that these alleged effects would cross
the ``may effect'' and/or ``likely to adversely affect'' thresholds
relevant to ESA considerations and thus trigger consultation
requirements under the ESA and its implementing regulations. They state
that EPA's approval of the proposed canola oil pathways represents a
discretionary programmatic action. On this basis, CBD argues EPA must
therefore consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (hereinafter collectively referred to
as ``the Services'') under section 7 of ESA before finalizing these
canola oil pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The comments identify these species as the Pallid Sturgeon
(Scaphirhynchus albus), the Whooping Crane (Grus americana), the
Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dacotae), the Western Prairie Fringed
Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) and the Poweshiek Skipperling
(Oarisma poweshiek).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to CBD's assertions, for this action, we find that EPA
lacks discretion to disapprove this pathway petition on the basis of
impacts to listed species or designated critical habitat of such
species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies, in
consultation with one or both of the Services, to ensure that actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat of such species.\32\ Under relevant
implementing regulations and case law, section 7(a)(2) applies only to
actions where there is discretionary federal involvement or
control.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2).
\33\ 50 CFR 402.03; National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders
of Wildlife, 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007) (Defenders of Wildlife).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court evaluated a claim that
EPA was required to engage in section 7 consultation in the context of
its approval of a state permitting program under the Clean Water Act
(CWA). In that case, the Court held that when a Federal agency is
required by statute to undertake a particular action without
considering species impacts, there is no relevant agency discretion,
and thus the requirements of ESA section 7(a)(2) do not apply.\34\ With
regard to EPA's transfer of CWA permitting authority to a State, the
relevant CWA provision specified that EPA ``shall approve'' a state
permitting program if a list of CWA statutory criteria are met. The
Court found that the relevant CWA program approval criteria did not
include consideration of endangered or threatened species and stated
that ``[n]othing in the text of [the relevant CWA provision] authorizes
EPA to consider the protection of threatened or endangered species as
an end in itself when evaluating [an] application'' to transfer a
permitting program to a State.\35\ Accordingly, the Court held that the
CWA required EPA to approve the state's permitting program if the
statutory criteria were met; those criteria did not include the
consideration of ESA-protected species; and thus, consistent with 50
CFR 402.03, the nondiscretionary action to transfer CWA permitting
authority to the state did not trigger ESA section 7 consultation
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Defenders of Wildlife at 2536.
\35\ Id. at 2537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the CWA program approval provision at issue in Defenders
of Wildlife, the CAA contains detailed provisions specifying the
parameters of fuels that qualify under this regulatory program.\36\
None of those provisions provide EPA the discretion to modify its
evaluation of potential qualifying fuels based on extra-statutory
criteria. Of relevance here, the CAA includes detailed definitions of
the terms ``advanced biofuel'' and ``biomass-based diesel,'' and those
definitions do not allow for consideration of impacts to threatened or
endangered species in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced biofuel is defined as ``renewable fuel, other than ethanol
derived from corn starch, that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions,
as determined by the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for
comment, that are at least 50 percent less than baseline lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions.'' \37\ This definition includes defined terms
within it, including the terms ``renewable fuel,'' (``[f]uel that is
produced from renewable biomass and that is used to replace or reduce
the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel''),
``baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions'' (``average lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions . . . for gasoline or diesel . . . sold or
distributed as transportation fuel in 2005''), and ``lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions''. The term ``lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions'' means the aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions
(including direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as
significant emissions from land use changes), as determined by the
Administrator, related to the full fuel lifecycle, including all stages
of fuel and feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock
generation or extraction through the distribution and delivery and use
of the finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where the mass values
for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their relative
global warming potential.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(B).
\38\ 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(J), (H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in determining if a fuel qualifies as advanced biofuel, EPA
must consider whether it meets the definition of renewable fuel--that
is, whether it is made from ``renewable biomass'' as defined in the
statute and is ``used to replace or reduce the quantity of fossil fuel
present in transportation fuel.'' EPA must also consider whether a fuel
is made from corn starch, and whether it satisfies the requirement that
it achieve a 50 percent lifecycle GHG emissions reduction as compared
to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. These factors represent
the full range of considerations that EPA is authorized to consider in
determining whether a fuel qualifies as advanced biofuel; it follows
that EPA is not authorized to consider impacts to threatened or
endangered species in determining what fuels qualify as advanced
biofuels under the CAA. In light of this carefully constrained
statutory scheme, EPA is without authority to alter this rule based on
listed species considerations and is under no obligation to consult
with the Services under section 7(a) of the ESA with respect to the
advanced biofuel pathways established in this action that utilize
canola oil feedstock to produce renewable diesel. EPA has no discretion
to deny approval of this pathway if the statutory criteria are met.
The same is true with respect to the pathways approved in this
action for the production of BBD from canola oil. The term biomass-
based diesel is defined in the CAA as renewable fuel that is biodiesel
as defined in section 13220(f) of this title and that has lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions . . . that are at least 50 percent less than
the baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, renewable fuel derived from co-processing biomass
with a petroleum feedstock shall be advanced biofuel if it meets the
requirements of [42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(B)], but is not biomass-based
diesel.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``biodiesel'' is defined in 42 U.S.C. 13220(f) to mean ``a
diesel fuel substitute produced from nonpetroleum renewable resources
that meets the registration requirements for fuels and fuel additives
established by the Environmental Protection Agency under section 211 of
the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7545]'' and ``includes biodiesel derived
from--(i) animal wastes, including poultry fats and poultry
[[Page 73961]]
wastes, and other waste materials; or (ii) municipal solid waste and
sludges and oils derived from wastewater and the treatment of
wastewater.'' Thus, in evaluating whether a fuel qualifies as BBD, EPA
is authorized to consider only whether the fuel meets the definition of
renewable fuel (made from renewable biomass and used to replace or
reduce the quantity of fossil fuel present in a transportation fuel),
whether it provides a qualifying lifecycle GHG reduction as compared to
baseline petroleum fuel, whether the biomass is co-processed with
petroleum feedstocks, and whether it meets the registration
requirements for fuels and fuel additives established via rulemaking by
EPA. These factors, again, represent the full range of considerations
that EPA is authorized to consider in determining whether a fuel
qualifies as BBD; it follows that EPA is not authorized to consider
impacts to threatened or endangered species in determining what fuels
qualify as BBD under the CAA. In light of this carefully constrained
statutory scheme, EPA is without authority to alter this rule based on
listed species considerations and is under no obligation to consult
with the Services under section 7(a) of the ESA with respect to the
advanced biofuel pathways established in this action that utilize
canola oil feedstock to produce BBD. EPA has no discretion to deny
approval of this pathway if the statutory criteria are met.
The action EPA is taking today is to determine that renewable
diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, naphtha, and LPG produced from canola
oil via a hydrotreating process meet the applicable statutory
requirements and thus qualify as renewable fuels under the RFS program.
EPA is not establishing volume requirements, which would require the
use of renewable fuel of various quantities and types (without
requiring any particular type of renewable fuel). EPA is currently
engaged in consultation with the Services on renewable fuel standards
and will consider the future use of canola oil under the RFS program in
that context. As discussed in response to comments from PFI, it is the
RFS standards that could impact demand for advanced biofuel and
biomass-based diesel; this pathway approval simply provides an
additional opportunity and flexibility that renewable fuel producers
may choose to adopt. Additionally, through the ongoing consultation
process, EPA will consider any impacts on species and designated
critical habitat as a result of our action setting RFS standards,
including any impacts associated with the use of canola oil to produce
renewable fuel within the RFS program, and will also consider any
appropriate responses.
III. Definition of Canola/Rapeseed Oil
EPA received comments on its proposed definition of ``canola/
rapeseed oil.'' Joint comments from three Canadian canola industry
organizations expressed that they believe ``canola and rapeseed are
well understood crops in the United States'' and that, therefore, they
``do not believe definitions are necessary.'' \40\ However, these
commenters also stated that they ``do not necessarily take issue with
the proposed definitions, which [they] believe identify the key species
being used for canola production in Canada today, so long as EPA makes
clear that it does not intend to impose additional requirements on
farmers or feedstock providers and that these terms are only intended
to be descriptors to distinguish canola and rapeseed based on the
distinct treatment of these crops in the U.S.'' \41\ The USCA expressed
similar opinions in their comments. While they believe the relevant
market participants fully understand the meaning of ``canola oil,'' and
that, therefore, no definition in the regulations is necessary, USCA
also expressed that they do not oppose the addition of this definition
to the regulations.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0066.
\41\ Id.
\42\ Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845-0072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify, EPA has not proposed, nor are we finalizing, any new
registration, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements associated with
implementing the canola oil-based pathways or our new definition of
canola/rapeseed oil. We are including this definition in the
regulations to provide clarity regarding which vegetable oil products
qualify under this pathway. This intent is well-aligned with that
described by the commenters. We are finalizing the definition largely
as proposed, with one minor, clerical edit for readability.
IV. Analysis of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
A. Overview of Lifecycle GHG Emissions Analysis
For the proposed rule, we evaluated the lifecycle GHG emissions of
producing renewable diesel and other biofuels from canola oil through a
hydrotreating process. We described our methodology for conducting this
evaluation, the assumptions and scenarios evaluated using this
methodology, and the results of our analysis. We used the same biofuel
lifecycle analysis methodology and modeling framework developed for the
March 2010 RFS2 rule, which was adopted after an extensive peer review
and public comment process. This methodology was developed to estimate
``lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions'' as defined in CAA section
211(o)(1)(H). The same methodology and modeling framework were
subsequently used for the September 2010 Canola Oil Rule.\43\ The
components of this methodology generally involve the use of
agricultural modeling to estimate emissions from land use change, crop
production, livestock, and rice methane, as well as application of
coefficients and assumptions from the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) model \44\ and other
sources to evaluate emissions associated with feedstock and fuel
transport, processing, and use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ For information about our 2010 methodology and analysis see
section 2 of the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the March 2010
RFS2 rule and the associated lifecycle results (Docket Item No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3173).
\44\ See documentation and description available from Argonne
National Lab at https://greet.es.anl.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, this methodology also involves using two agricultural
sector models, FASOM and the FAPRI-CARD model, to estimate U.S. and
non-U.S. GHG emissions impacts, respectively. Applying our methodology
in the analysis conducted for the Canola NPRM, we modeled and evaluated
a hypothetical canola oil demand shock scenario to estimate changes in
agricultural production and land use and associated GHG emissions
associated with the biofuel pathways under consideration. In the demand
shock scenario modeled for our Canola NPRM analysis, U.S. domestic
consumption of canola oil-based fuels was assumed to increase by some
amount relative to the volume of U.S. domestic consumption in a
reference scenario.
This methodology also includes estimating GHG emissions associated
with fuel production, distribution and use based on data from GREET and
other sources. All of these GHG emissions estimates are added together
and divided by the change in the amount of biofuel produced in the
scenarios evaluated to estimate the lifecycle GHG emissions associated
with fuel produced through the evaluated pathway, in terms of carbon
dioxide-equivalent emissions per megajoule (MJ) of fuel produced.
[[Page 73962]]
We stated in section II.C.1 of the Canola NPRM that we would update
emissions factor assumptions from GREET-2020 to GREET-2021 for the
final rule. We received no public comment on this statement or our
intention to update to GREET-2021 for the final rule. We have made
these updates for the final rule and describe the impacts of these
updates below.
Other than updating particular emissions factors based on GREET-
2021 as we committed to do in the proposed rule, we are finalizing our
lifecycle GHG analysis as proposed. Detailed information and discussion
regarding the other components of our methodology is available in the
Canola NPRM preamble \45\ and the docket for this rulemaking.\46\ We
summarize the results of our updated lifecycle analysis in section IV.C
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 87 FR 22826-40.
\46\ See Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0845.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Data Updates Based on GREET-2021
Based on the lifecycle analysis methodology developed for the March
2010 RFS2 rule, our analysis uses data from the GREET model on the
emissions per unit of energy or mass associated with particular inputs
to the product lifecycle (``emissions factors''). These emissions
factors are the estimates from GREET associated with using inputs such
as diesel, electricity, and natural gas. In the proposal we said that
we would update these data based on GREET-2021, and that we did not
expect these updates to have a large enough effect on the lifecycle GHG
emissions estimates to change our GHG reduction threshold
determinations for the proposed canola oil-based fuel pathways. We have
made the data updates based on GREET-2021 and as expected these updates
have a relatively small effect on our lifecycle GHG estimates.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The lifecycle GHG calculations including the updated GREET
emissions factors are included in a spreadsheet available in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GREET data updates were applied to the following elements:
emissions factors for the production and use of gasoline, diesel,
natural gas, LPG, coal, gaseous hydrogen, electricity, fertilizer,
herbicide, and insecticide. The emissions factors increased for
gasoline, diesel, natural gas, LPG, fertilizer, and pesticide.\48\ The
emissions factors decreased for gaseous hydrogen, electricity,
limestone, and herbicide. Overall, these updates changed our lifecycle
GHG estimates by less than two percent. For canola oil renewable
diesel, we now estimate GHG reductions of 64-70 percent relative to the
baseline, compared to 63-69 percent in the proposal. For canola oil-
based naphtha and LPG we estimate GHG reductions of 63-69 percent,
unchanged from the proposal. For canola oil-based renewable jet fuel we
estimate GHG reductions of 58-67 percent, compared to 59-67 percent in
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ We corrected an underestimate in the proposed rule of the
GHG emissions associated with crude oil extraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of Analysis of Lifecycle GHG Emissions
Table IV.C-1 reports our estimates of the lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with renewable diesel produced from canola oil through a
hydrotreating process, and the corresponding percent reduction relative
to the petroleum baseline. Three sets of estimates are presented for
canola oil renewable diesel. The emissions categories are aggregated to
simplify the presentation of the table. Domestic and international
agricultural emissions include emissions associated with changes in
crop and livestock production. Feedstock processing (i.e., canola seed
crushing) and feedstock seed and oil transport emissions are reported
together. Downstream and use includes emissions from fuel distribution
and fuel use. Land use change emissions include emissions from domestic
and international land use changes, including both emissions from
direct conversion to cropland and market-mediated effects such as
foregone potential land carbon sequestration. As discussed in section
IV.B, we have made minor updates relative to the proposed rule by
incorporating more recent emissions factors from the GREET-2021 model.
These updates changed our GHG estimates in the tables below for the
feedstock transport & crushing, fuel production, and downstream & use
lifecycle stages. All other estimates remain unchanged from the NPRM.
Our evaluation considers uncertainty in international land use
change emissions based on the methodology used for the March 2010 RFS2
rule. The table includes a range of land use change estimates based on
our analysis of this uncertainty. The first column includes results
based on our average estimate of international land use change GHG
emissions. We also report results for the low and high ends of our 95
percent confidence interval for international land use change
emissions. Our calculations include ranges for domestic agriculture,
international agriculture, feedstock transport and crushing, and fuel
production are based on estimated ranges in the yield of finished fuel
(in MJ of fuel produced per pound of canola oil feedstock). However, to
simplify the presentation of the results we report the average of the
eight estimates.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Using the average or median values results in the same
percent GHG reduction relative to the petroleum baseline. We are not
taking a position on whether it is more appropriate to use mean or
median values in other contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another update is that the analysis for the March 2010 RFS2 rule
used 100-year global warming potential (GWP) values from the IPCC
Second Assessment Report. The analysis for this proposed rule uses 100-
year GWP values from the most recent IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.\50\
Based on these updates, the GWP for methane increased from 21 to 30,
and the GWP for nitrous oxide decreased from 310 to 265. This update
was described in section II.C.1 of the NPRM; we did not receive public
comment on this update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland, 151 pp.
Table IV.C-1-Lifecycle GHG Emissions Associated With Renewable Diesel Produced From Canola Oil Through a
Hydrotreating Process
[In grams of CO2 equivalent per MJ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions category 2005 Diesel
baseline Canola oil renewable diesel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Agriculture............................ 18 -2.3
International Agriculture....................... .............. -0.3
Feedstock Transport & Crushing.................. .............. 6.9
Fuel Production................................. .............. 12.4
[[Page 73963]]
0.4
-----------------------------------------------
Downstream & Use................................ 75
Land Use Change Estimate........................ .............. Mean Low High
Land Use Change................................. .............. 13.8 3.2 26.0
Net Emissions................................... 93 30.9 20.2 43.1
% GHG Reduction Relative to Baseline............ .............. 67% 78% 53%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many cases, when vegetable oils are hydrotreated to produce
renewable diesel, there are co-product outputs of naphtha, LPG, and jet
fuel. The GHG estimates for these co-product fuels differ slightly from
the renewable diesel estimates presented in the table above based on
differences in how they are transported to end users and in end use
emissions. The results for naphtha and LPG, based on the mean
international land use change estimates, are summarized in Table IV.C-
2.
Table IV.C-2--Lifecycle GHG Emissions Associated With Naphtha and LPG
Produced From Canola Oil Through a Hydrotreating Process
[In grams of CO2 equivalent per MJ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naphtha LPG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifecycle GHG Emissions.............................. 31.4 31.4
Percent Reduction Relative to Baseline............... 67% 66%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not present separate results of heating oil as it is not
reported as an output for any of the hydrotreating processes evaluated.
However, renewable diesel could be used as heating oil if market
conditions change substantially (e.g., if heating oil prices were to
exceed diesel prices net of government incentives). The GHG emissions
associated with heating oil are therefore very similar to renewable
diesel, although there may be small differences in GHG emissions
associated with fuel distribution and use.
As discussed in the NPRM,\51\ canola oil hydrotreating processes
that are set up to maximize jet fuel output require more processing and
hydrogen, resulting in greater lifecycle GHG emissions. The range of
lifecycle GHG estimates for canola oil renewable jet fuel are reported
in Table IV.C-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See 87 FR 22838 for details.
Table IV.C-3--Lifecycle GHG Emissions Associated With Renewable Jet Fuel Produced From Canola Oil Through a
Hydrotreating Process
[in grams of CO2 equivalent per MJ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions category 2005 diesel
baseline Canola oil renewable jet fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Agriculture............................ 18 -2.3
International Agriculture....................... .............. -0.3
Feedstock Transport & Crushing.................. .............. 6.8
Fuel Production................................. .............. 15.4
0.4
-----------------------------------------------
Downstream & Use................................ 75 ..............
Land Use Change Estimate........................ .............. Mean Low High
Land Use Change (LUC)........................... .............. 13.7 3.1 25.9
Net Emissions................................... 93 33.8 23.2 46
% GHG Reduction Relative to Baseline............ .............. 63% 75% 50%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Summary
Based on our GHG lifecycle evaluation described in the NPRM, we
find that renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha, LPG, and heating oil
produced from canola oil via a hydrotreating process all meet the 50
percent GHG reduction threshold. Based on this finding, we determine
that renewable diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil produced from canola
oil are eligible for BBD (D-code 4) RINs if they are produced through a
hydrotreating process that does not co-process renewable biomass and
petroleum, and for advanced biofuel (D-code 5) RINs if they are
produced through a process that does co-process renewable biomass and
petroleum. Based on this finding, we also determine that naphtha and
LPG production from canola oil through a hydrotreating process are
eligible for advanced biofuel (D-code 5) RINs. Based on these
determinations, we are adding these pathways to Table 1 of 40 CFR
80.1426.
We are also finalizing our proposed definition of ``canola/rapeseed
oil'' and adding this definition to 40 CFR 80.1401.
VI. Statutory & Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response
[[Page 73964]]
to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The GHG
lifecycle analysis conducted for this proposed determination,
``Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Canola Oil Pathways to Renewable
Diesel, Jet Fuel, Naphtha, Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Heating Oil,''
is available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0725. This action creates new pathways by which to
generate RINs for renewable fuels under the RFS program but creates no
new information collection requirements for these additional pathways.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for
this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities
and that the agency is certifying that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule would have no net burden. This rule enables canola oil
producers and producers of biofuels from canola oil to participate in
the RFS program if they choose to do so to obtain economic benefits. We
have therefore concluded that this action has no net regulatory burden
for all directly regulated small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It does 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule affects only producers of canola oil
and producers of biofuels made from canola oil. 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 Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive order. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or
safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This rule enables canola oil producers
and producers of biofuels from canola oil to participate in the RFS
program if they choose to do so. This may create additional supplies of
energy, potentially leading to positive impacts on the energy system.
This rule would create no new burdens on the distribution or use of
energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This rule gives renewable fuel
producers the ability to generate credits under the RFS program for the
production of specified biofuels from canola oil. This rule does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment by applicable air quality standards. EPA recognizes that
the RFS program as a whole may have impacts related to environmental
justice. These potential impacts are discussed further in the RFS
Annual Rules for 2020, 2021, and 2022, published in June 2022.\52\
Future actions to set biofuel volume requirements may take into
consideration the availability of this renewable fuel pathway for the
production of biofuel from canola oil and thus may affect GHG
emissions, air quality, water or soil quality, or fuel and food
prices.\53\ However, this action does not modify biofuel volume
requirements and thus EPA believes that the final rule to approve a new
pathway, in and of itself, will not affect human health or the
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See 87 FR 39600-77 and Chapter 8, Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) Program: RFS Annual Rules--Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA-
420-R-22-008, June 2022.
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Statutory Authority
Statutory authority for this action comes from CAA sections 114,
208, 211, and 301.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
80 as follows:
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).
Subpart M--Renewable Fuel Standard
0
2. Amend Sec. 80.1401 by adding in alphabetical order a definition for
``Canola/Rapeseed oil'' to read as follows:
Sec. 80.1401 Definitions.
* * * * *
Canola/Rapeseed oil means either of the following:
(1) Canola oil is oil from the plants Brassica napus, Brassica
rapa, Brassica juncea, Sinapis alba, or Sinapis arvensis and which
typically contains less than
[[Page 73965]]
2 percent erucic acid in the component fatty acids obtained.
(2) Rapeseed oil is the oil obtained from the plants Brassica
napus, Brassica rapa, or Brassica juncea.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 80.1426 in table 1 to Sec. 80.1426 by revising the
entries ``G'', ``H'', and ``I'' to read as follows:
Sec. 80.1426 How are RINs generated and assigned to batches of
renewable fuel?
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 80.1426--Applicable D Codes for Each Fuel Pathway for Use in Generating RINs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production process
Fuel type Feedstock requirements D-Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
G......................... Biodiesel, renewable Canola/Rapeseed oil...... One of the following: 4
diesel, jet fuel, Transesterification
and heating oil. using natural gas or
biomass for process
energy, or
Hydrotreating; excludes
processes that co-
process renewable
biomass and petroleum.
H......................... Biodiesel, renewable Soy bean oil; Oil from One of the following: 5
diesel, jet fuel, annual covercrops; Oil Transesterification with
and heating oil. from algae grown or without
photosynthetically; esterification pre-
Biogenic waste oils/fats/ treatment,
greases; Camelina sativa Esterification, or
oil; Distillers corn Hydrotreating; includes
oil; Distillers sorghum only processes that co-
oil; Commingled process renewable
distillers corn oil and biomass and petroleum.
sorghum oil; Canola/
Rapeseed oil.
I......................... Naphtha, LPG......... Camelina sativa oil; Hydrotreating............ 5
Distillers sorghum oil;
Distillers corn oil;
Commingled distillers
corn oil and distillers
sorghum oil; Canola/
Rapeseed oil.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-26250 Filed 12-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
