[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68345-68347]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27015]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0871; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-187-AD;
Amendment 39-17658; AD 2013-23-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B,
747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR
series airplanes. This AD requires inspecting to determine the part
number of the inboard actuator attach fittings of the outboard flap.
For affected attach fittings, this AD requires doing a detailed
inspection of the attach fittings for a cylindrical defect and
replacing if necessary. As an option to the detailed inspection, this
AD allows replacement of affected attach fittings. This AD was prompted
by a report of the fracture of an inboard actuator attach fitting of
the outboard flap. An inspection of the attach fitting revealed that it
was incorrectly machined with a cylindrical profile instead of a
conical profile, resulting in reduced wall thickness. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct defective inboard actuator attach
fittings which, combined with loss of the outboard actuator load path,
could result in uncontrolled retraction of the outboard flap, damage to
flight control systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective November 29, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 29,
2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by December 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We received a report a report of the fracture of a No. 7 inboard
actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap. It was determined that
the fracture occurred in the internal conical machined area.
Investigation revealed that a portion of the interior surface was
machined with a cylindrical profile instead of a conical profile. This
resulted in reduced wall thickness and subsequent fracture; the
thickness of the fitting was approximately half the designed wall
thickness. We also received reports of other attach fittings with a
cylindrical defect with reduced wall thickness. This condition combined
with loss of the outboard actuator load path, if not corrected, could
result in uncontrolled retraction of the outboard flap and subsequent
damage to flight control systems at the rear spar, and consequent
reduced controllability of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated
September 12, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires inspecting to determine the part number of the
inboard actuator attach fittings of the outboard flap. For affected
attach fittings, this AD requires doing a detailed inspection of the
attach fittings for a cylindrical defect and replacing if necessary. As
an option to the detailed inspection, this AD allows replacement of the
affected attach fittings.
    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee,
to enhance the

AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which steps
in the service information are required for compliance with an AD.
Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information
is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial
AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance.
The actions specified in the service information described previously
include steps that are labeled as RC (required for compliance) because
these steps have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving,
or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
    As noted in the specified service information, steps labeled as RC
must be done to comply with the AD. However, steps that are not labeled
as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not labeled as RC may be
deviated from, done as part of other actions, or done using accepted
methods different from those identified in the service information
without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC), provided the steps labeled as RC can be done and the airplane
can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or
changes to steps labeled as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The manufacturer is currently
developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition
identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved,
and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
    We are also considering further rulemaking to require a minimum
thickness inspection of inboard actuator attach fittings that are
conically machined. However, the planned compliance time for the
minimum thickness inspection would allow enough time to provide notice
and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of that
inspection. This AD only addresses the unsafe condition associated with
inboard actuator attach fittings of the outboard flap that have a
cylindrical defect.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
defective actuator attach fittings, combined with loss of the outboard
actuator load path, could result in uncontrolled retraction of the
outboard flap, damage to flight control systems, and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2013-0871 and
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-187-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 184 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for part number..........  7 work-hour x $85 per                $0             $595         $109,480
                                       hour = $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs''
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-23-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17658; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0871; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-187-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 29, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, dated September 12, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of the fracture of an inboard
actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap. An inspection of the
attach fitting revealed that it was incorrectly machined with a
cylindrical profile instead of a conical profile, resulting in
reduced wall thickness. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
defective inboard actuator attach fittings which, combined with loss
of the outboard actuator load path, could result in uncontrolled
retraction of the outboard flap, damage to flight control systems,
and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Part Number Inspection

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Inspect to
determine the part number of the inboard actuator attach fittings of
the outboard flaps, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated
September 12, 2013.

(h) Actions for Certain Attach Fittings

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any inboard actuator attach fitting having part number (P/N)
65B08564-7 is found, before further flight, do the actions specified
in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the inboard actuator attach
fitting for a cylindrical defect, in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, dated September 12, 2013. If any cylindrical defect is
found, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph
(h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Do a minimum thickness inspection of the inboard actuator
attach fitting to determine minimum wall thickness of the actuator
fitting assembly, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated
September 12, 2013. If the minimum thickness of the wall is less
than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator
attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747
57A2343, dated September 12, 2013.
    (ii) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12,
2013.
    (2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12,
2013.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) If the service information contains steps that are labeled
as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply
with this AD; any steps that are not labeled as RC are recommended.
Those steps that are not labeled as RC may be deviated from, done as
part of other actions, or done using accepted methods different from
those identified in the specified service information without
obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps labeled as RC can
be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition.
Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as RC require approval
of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September
12, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 31, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27015 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73956-73965]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26250]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 http://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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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

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

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

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\

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

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.

    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

                                                                                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

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

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