80 FR 61406 - Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Jatropha Curcas Oil for Use in Biofuel Production
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 197 (October 13, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 197 (October 13, 2015)
| Page Range | 61406-61419 | |
| FR Document | 2015-26039 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 61406-61419] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-26039] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293; FRL-9935-46-OAR] Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Jatropha Curcas Oil for Use in Biofuel Production AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment on its analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the production and transport of Jatropha curcas (``jatropha'') oil feedstock for use in making biofuels such as biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas. This notice explains EPA's analysis of the production and transport components of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of biofuel made from jatropha oil, and describes how EPA may apply this analysis in the future to determine whether such biofuels meet the necessary greenhouse gas reductions required for qualification as renewable fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. Based on this analysis, we anticipate that biofuels produced from jatropha oil could qualify as biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel if typical fuel production process technologies or process technologies with the same or lower GHG emissions are used. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OAR-2015-0293 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Ramig, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1372; fax number: (202) 564-1177; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. [[Page 61407]] Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. This notice is organized as follows: I. General Information II. Introduction III. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With Use of Jatropha Oil as a Biofuel Feedstock A. Summary of Greenhouse Gas Analysis B. Feedstock Description and Growing Conditions C. Cultivation and Harvesting D. Land Use Change and Agricultural Sector Emissions E. Feedstock Transport and Processing F. Potential Invasiveness G. Summary of GHG Emissions From Jatropha Oil Production and Transport H. Fuel Production and Distribution IV. Summary II. Introduction As part of changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program regulations published on March 26, 2010 \1\ (the ``March 2010 RFS rule''), EPA specified the types of renewable fuels eligible to participate in the RFS program through approved fuel pathways. Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 of the RFS regulations lists three critical components of an approved fuel pathway: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; and (3) production process. Fuel produced pursuant to each specific combination of the three components, or fuel pathway, is designated in the Table as eligible to qualify as renewable fuel. EPA may also approve additional fuel pathways not currently listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for participation in the RFS program, including in response to a petition filed pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by a biofuel producer seeking EPA evaluation of a new fuel pathway. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See 75 FR 14670. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall greenhouse gas (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 greenhouse gas reductions required under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of the subsets of renewable fuel. 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, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes, agricultural sector impacts, and production of co-products from biofuel production. EPA received a petition submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 from Global Clean Energy Holdings (``GCEH'' or the ``GCEH petition'') and Emerald Biofuels, LLC, submitted under a claim of confidential business information (CBI), requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for biofuels (biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel and naphtha) produced from the oil extracted from Jatropha curcas (hereafter referred to as ``jatropha'' or ``jatropha oil''). The petition also requested EPA provide a determination of the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be eligible under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The Agency also received a separate petition from Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc., submitted under a claim of CBI, requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for the use of neat jatropha oil as a transportation fuel, and that EPA provide a determination of the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such neat jatropha oil fuel may be eligible.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ There are no further references in this Notice to Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc., as they did not agree to waive CBI claims to the data/information contained in their petition and supporting documentation submitted to EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, or references thereto. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA has conducted an evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil when it is used as a biofuel feedstock, and is seeking public comment on the methodology and results of this evaluation. In this document, we are describing EPA's evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with the feedstock production and feedstock transport stages of the lifecycle analysis of jatropha oil when it is used to produce a biofuel, including the indirect agricultural and forestry sector impacts. We are seeking public comment on the methodology and results of this evaluation. For the reasons described in Section III below, we believe that it is reasonable to apply the GHG emissions estimates we established in the March 2010 rule for the production and transport of soybean oil to the production and transport of jatropha oil. If appropriate, EPA will update its evaluation of the feedstock production and transport phases of the lifecycle analysis for jatropha oil based on comments received in response to this action. EPA will then use this feedstock production and transport information to evaluate facility-specific petitions, received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, that propose to use jatropha oil as a feedstock for the production of biofuel. In evaluating such petitions, EPA will consider the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil feedstock. In addition, EPA will determine--based on information in the petition and other relevant information, including the petitioner's energy and mass balance data--the GHG emissions associated with petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as emissions associated with the transport and use of the finished biofuel. We will then combine our assessments into a full lifecycle GHG analysis and determine whether the fuel produced at an individual facility satisfies CAA renewable fuel GHG reduction requirements. III. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With Use of Jatropha Oil as a Biofuel Feedstock EPA has evaluated the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil for use as a biofuel feedstock, based on information provided in the GCEH petition and other data gathered by EPA. Section III-A includes an overview of our GHG analysis of jatropha oil production and transport. Section III-B describes jatropha oil and available information about the growing conditions suitable for commercial-scale production. Section III-C explains our analysis of the GHG emissions attributable to growing and harvesting jatropha seeds. Section III-D describes our analysis of the land use change and other agricultural sector emissions, including significant indirect emissions, attributable to producing jatropha oil for use as a biofuel feedstock. Section III-E explains our assessment of the GHG emissions associated with feedstock transport and processing, including oil extraction and pre-treatment. Section III-F discusses the potential invasiveness of jatropha. Section III-G summarizes GHG emissions from jatropha oil production and transport. Section III-H discusses how EPA intends to consider the GHG emissions associated with fuel production and [[Page 61408]] distribution when evaluating facility-specific petitions from biofuel producers seeking to generate renewable identification numbers (RINs) for non-grandfathered volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil. This Notice explains and seeks comment on each component of EPA's GHG assessment of jatropha oil production and transportation. We also discuss and seek comment on potential invasiveness concerns for jatropha as they relate to GHG emissions. In this Notice we compare our assessment of jatropha oil to our previous evaluation of soybean oil for the March 2010 RFS rule because jatropha oil and soybean oil can be used in the same types of production processes to produce biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel, and other similar types of biofuels. In the March 2010 RFS rule, EPA determined that several renewable fuel pathways using soybean oil feedstock meet the required 50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold under the RFS for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ These pathways included biodiesel produced from soybean oil through a transesterification production process, and renewable diesel, jet fuel and heating oil produced from soybean oil through a hydrotreating production process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Summary of Greenhouse Gas Analysis Based on the limited data available on where jatropha will be produced at commercial scale for use in making biofuels for the RFS program, we evaluated a number of scenarios with different assumptions about where jatropha will be grown and what type of land jatropha plantations will use. This section briefly discusses the two main scenarios that we evaluated and our overall findings based on these analyses. As explained in more detail in Section III-B below, based on information in the GCEH petition and other data gathered by EPA through literature review and expert consultations, we believe that southern Mexico (specifically the states of Yucatan, Oaxaca and Chiapas) and northeastern Brazil \4\ are the likely locations for commercial-scale production of jatropha for use in making biofuels for the RFS program. Given the limited amount of available data, these are the two countries where we found reliable evidence on jatropha production that could supply significant volumes of qualifying biofuel feedstock under the RFS program. In the first scenario that we evaluated, we assume that jatropha production will occur on grassland in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil that is not currently being used for crop production or pasture use. As explained more below, we estimate that on average the GHG emissions attributable to jatropha oil extracted from jatropha seeds grown on unused grasslands in southern Mexico are 951 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (kgCO 2 e) per tonne of jatropha oil that has been harvested, extracted, pre- treated to lower acidity and delivered to a biofuel producer (``delivered jatropha oil''), compared to 1,425 kgCO2 e per tonne of delivered soybean oil. If jatropha is grown on grassland in northeastern Brazil that would not otherwise have been used for crop production or grazing, we estimate that the GHG emissions would be 1,858 kgCO2 e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil. Land use change emissions are higher in northeastern Brazil than in Mexico because, on average, grasslands in northeastern Brazil sequester significantly more carbon than grasslands in southern Mexico.\5\ Since we think it is likely that jatropha will be grown in both locations, we believe it is appropriate to evaluate a scenario in which we assume an equal amount of growth on grasslands in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil. In this scenario, the GHG emissions are 1,404 kgCO2 e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil, which is lower than the emissions attributable to delivered soybean oil. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Specifically the regions of Brazil that encompasses the following provinces: Alagoas, Bahia, Ceara, Maranhao, Paraiba, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe, Tocantins. \5\ Based on our assessment of land use change emissions factors for previous RFS rules, on average grasslands in Mexico sequester approximately 15 tonnes CO2 e per hectare compared to 40 tonnes CO2 e per hectare in northeastern Brazil. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a second scenario, we considered the possibility that jatropha will be grown on land that would have otherwise been used for agriculture (crop production or grazing/pasture). For this analysis we used the Food and Agricultural Policy and Research Institute international models as maintained by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University (the FAPRI-CARD model),\6\ that has been used for a number of previous RFS rulemakings, including the March 2010 RFS rule. We conducted two analyses within this scenario: One where we assumed that jatropha will displace crops (predominantly corn) in Mexico, and one where jatropha is grown on cropland in Mexico and on agricultural land in Brazil (with the model choosing what land to displace in Brazil). The second scenario, where jatropha is grown on land otherwise used for agricultural production, evaluates the impacts associated with jatropha displacing crop and pasture land, including evaluating whether and where increased crop production or pasturage would occur in other regions to compensate for the jatropha displacement. In both of these analyses the GHG emissions attributable to the production of jatropha oil are much lower than the corresponding emissions for soybean oil. Specifically, for the Mexico cropland analysis we estimated GHG emissions of negative 721 kgCO2 e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil. As explained more below, the net GHG emissions in this analysis are negative primarily because jatropha sequesters more carbon than the cropland it displaces and the indirect emissions are relatively small because the displaced corn production is backfilled by higher yield producers (e.g., corn production in the United States). For the Mexico and Brazil analysis, the net GHG emissions are 128 kgCO2 e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil, which is also significantly less than the emissions per tonne of delivered soybean oil. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ For more information on the FAPRI-CARD model see the March 2010 RFS rule and associated Regulatory Impact Analysis: Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R- 10-006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the two scenarios described above, we believe it is reasonable, as a conservative approach, to apply the GHG emissions estimates we established in the March 2010 rule for the production and transport of soybean oil to jatropha oil when evaluating future facility-specific petitions from biofuel producers seeking to generate RINs for volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil.\7\ The following sections and supporting documentation in the public docket provides more details on the scenarios and analyses described [[Page 61409]] above. We welcome public comments on all aspects of our assessment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ The purpose of lifecycle assessment under the RFS program is not to precisely estimate lifecycle GHG emissions associated with particular biofuels, but instead to determine whether or not the fuels satisfy specified lifecycle GHG emissions thresholds to qualify as one or more of the four types of renewable fuel specified in the statute. If the record demonstrates that the GHG emissions associated with the use of jatropha oil are at least as low as those of soybean oil (which meets the most stringent, 50%, lifecycle GHG reduction threshold specified for non-cellulosic feedstocks) then EPA can conclude that where comparable biofuel production methods are used that jatropha oil-based biofuels will qualify in the same manner as soybean oil-based biofuels. In some cases, as here, this comparative approach simplifies EPA's assessment, and allows relevant conclusions to be drawn despite uncertainty that may be associated with an attempt to determine a more precise lifecycle GHG assessment. Similarly, where there are a range of possible outcomes and the fuel satisfies GHG reduction requirements for the optimum RFS renewable fuel qualification when ``conservative'' assumptions are used, then a more precise quantification of the matter is not required for purposes of a pathway determination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Feedstock Description and Growing Conditions Jatropha is a deciduous, perennial shrub or tree species belonging to the Euphorbiaceae family that grows approximately 8 to 15 meters tall. Experts agree that jatropha is native to the American tropics; however there is disagreement in the literature regarding its origin and the borders of jatropha's native range.\8\ However, it is naturalized throughout Latin America, including Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, and to a lesser extent in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela.\9\ Traditionally, it has been grown in tropical and sub-tropical regions in Africa, Asia and Latin America as a hedge and ornamental plant. Jatropha is adapted to arid and semi-arid conditions and high temperatures, and it has been found to be very frost intolerant. In its Latin American range, it is common in deciduous forests and open spaces including grassland-savannah and scrub forests. It prefers low altitudes, well drained soils and good aeration. It is adapted to marginal lands with low nutrient content, but commercial production has been unsuccessful in these conditions. Jatropha fruit, similar in appearance to a walnut, can be harvested at least once per year, though multiple harvests are possible as mature jatropha plants flower throughout the year. The fruit has a thick outer covering called a husk. Each fruit contains one to three seeds, each with a durable outer shell and a softer oil-bearing inner kernel. The seeds are 25-50 percent oil by mass. When oil is extracted from the kernel the remaining material forms a seedcake (also known as press cake or meal cake) that contains curcin, a highly toxic protein. Although the oil and seedcake are toxic to humans and livestock, the oil has good properties for use as a biofuel feedstock to produce fuels such as biodiesel, renewable diesel and jet fuel, and the seedcake can be used as fertilizer or as fuel for process heat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ CABI Jatropha Curcas Data Sheet, http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28393 \9\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jatropha does not have a long history as a planted crop. As a result, empirical data on crop yields, crop inputs, and other key agricultural characteristics are not readily available. In order to fill these knowledge gaps to the greatest extent possible, EPA conducted a literature review of agronomic and lifecycle GHG analysis studies of jatropha.\10\ We sought input on a draft of the literature review from a wide array of stakeholders, including academics, environmental organizations, industry groups and the parties who submitted petitions involving the use of jatropha oil feedstock. The comments we received were considered in preparing the revised document available in the public docket associated with this Notice. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Several past efforts to cultivate jatropha for biofuel use attempted, without commercial success, to produce jatropha on marginal agricultural land with minimal inputs.\11\ By contrast, the petitioners and others working to commercialize jatropha more recently have utilized higher quality agricultural land and have made much more extensive use of fertilizer, irrigation, and other agricultural inputs. Therefore, for purposes of this assessment, we assume that jatropha grown for use as a biofuel feedstock will be grown as a planted crop under normal agricultural conditions. In other words, we expect jatropha to be grown by farmers on arable land with the use of fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation where necessary, and other crop inputs. Our projection that jatropha grown for biofuel feedstock targeted to the U.S. market will be cultivated on agricultural-quality land also aligns with the definition of renewable biomass at 40 CFR 80.1401, which specifies that planted crops must be grown on existing agricultural land cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Kant, P. and S. Wu. 2011. ``The Extraordinary Collapse of Jatropha as a Global Biofuel.'' Environmental Science & Technology 45(17):7114-7115. doi: 10.1021/es201943v. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on conversations with researchers at the United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and other organizations, we determined that jatropha is unlikely to be commercially grown in the United States because of its high intolerance to frost.\12\ USDA and several university research groups have attempted to grow jatropha in the United States, including projects in Arizona, California, and Florida. To date, no one has demonstrated that jatropha would be a viable commercial-scale crop in the United States due primarily to its extreme frost intolerance.\13\ Even in the southernmost reaches of the country, occasional frosts have proven too severe for the plant to be viable. For these reasons, EPA's analysis does not consider jatropha production in the United States. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Telephone conversations with Terry Coffelt (USDA-ARS), Terry Isbell (USDA-ARS), Roy Scott (USDA-ARS), Dan Parfitt (University of California-Davis), Wagner Vendrame (University of Florida), Jaime Barton (Hawaii Agricultural Research Center), Bob Osgood (HARC), Richard Oguchi (University of Hawaii), Robert Bailis (Yale). \13\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Projecting where jatropha will be produced is difficult, as evidenced by previous government projects to support the expansion of jatropha production that did not materialize.\14\ Given the poor track record of pronouncements about future jatropha development, we focused our analysis on regions where we could find evidence of current production at commercial scale. Through literature review and conversations with researchers and industry experts, we found evidence of significant commercial jatropha production in Mexico and Brazil. In contrast, although large areas of Asian jatropha production were planned and reported in global surveys, EPA was not able to verify the existence of successful commercial scale plantations in these regions. While there is potential for jatropha cultivation in India and Africa, it remains uncertain whether jatropha oil grown in those locations would be exported to the United States or whether it would qualify as renewable biomass as defined in the CAA and implementing RFS regulations.\15\ The scenarios we evaluated looked only at jatropha production in Mexico and Brazil, because, as discussed in more detail below, these are the two countries where we found reliable evidence on jatropha production that could supply significant volumes of qualifying biofuel feedstock under the RFS program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. \15\ For example, recent trade data shows that in general the U.S. receives substantially more agricultural imports from Mexico and Brazil than from Africa and India. For example, in Fiscal Year 2014, the U.S. imported over 22.5 billion dollars of agricultural products from Mexico and Brazil, compared to approximately 5.7 billion dollars from Africa and India. Source: USDA Economic Research Service and Foreign Agricultural Service. 2015. Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade, AES-89, August 27, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mexico and Brazil offer hospitable environments for jatropha. Both countries are part of jatropha's naturalized range, and several efforts to commercialize jatropha have been reported there.\16\ In the GEXSI jatropha market survey of Latin America, Mexico and Brazil were the only countries classified as having ``strong commercial [[Page 61410]] activities.'' \17\ The global survey completed by Leuphana in 2012 also identified Mexico and Brazil as the dominant jatropha producers in Latin America with area planted of 8,000 and 3,100 hectares respectively.\18\ These survey results are supported by other studies in the literature and information gathered by EPA.\19\ According to the GCEH petition, GCEH recently established a jatropha plantation in the Yucatan Peninsula encompassing several thousand hectares, with plans for expansion in the same region. Furthermore, the Mexican government has supported jatropha through the ProArbol program of the National Forestry Commission of Mexico (CONAFOR) that provides subsidies for the promotion of jatropha as a form of reforestation.\20\ Bailis and Baka, for their study on using jatropha oil to produce jet fuel, focused on Brazil because its position as a major biofuel and commercial agricultural exporter makes it a potential site for large-scale jatropha production.\21\ As another reason for focusing on Brazil as a growth region for jatropha, Bailis and Baka cited the major push by EMBRAPA, the federal agricultural research and support organization, to develop the crop. Furthermore, our literature review identified additional studies that reported commercial scale jatropha production in Mexico and Brazil.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ CABI Jatropha Curcas Data Sheet, http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28393 \17\ The Global Exchange for Social Investment (GEXSI). 2008. Global Market Study on Jatropha. Final report. Available at: http://www.jatropha-alliance.org/fileadmin/documents/GEXSI_Global-Jatropha-Study_FULL-REPORT.pdf. \18\ Wahl et al. 2012. Insights into Jatropha Projects Worldwide. Leuphana University. \19\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. \20\ Skutsch, M., E. de los Rios, S. Solis, E. Riegelhaupt, D. Hinojosa, S. Gerfert, Y. Gao, and O. Masera. 2011. ``Jatropha in Mexico: Environmental and Social Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel Program.'' Ecology and Society 16(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-04448- 160411. \21\ Bailis, R.E. and J.E. Baka. 2010. ``Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change from Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil.'' Environmental Science & Technology 44(22):8684-8691. doi:10.1021/es1019178. \22\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There have been several efforts to commercialize jatropha in other parts of the world, including Sub-Saharan Africa, India, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. However, the commercial scale viability of jatropha farms in all of these regions is currently uncertain. The global surveys conducted by GEXSI and Leuphana reported that the vast majority of jatropha being cultivated worldwide was being grown in Southeast Asia, including India, China and Indonesia. The most recent of these surveys collected data in 2011.\23\ However, after reviewing these surveys carefully and discussing their results with experts in industry and the USDA, we determined that practically all of the reported jatropha plantations in Asia were aspirational and have not resulted in commercially significant volumes of jatropha oil. EPA has not been able to locate any information that confirms the presence of the large scale Asian projects reported in the GEXSI and Leuphana surveys, and there does not appear to be any official data confirming their existence.\24\ These surveys relied on data that were self- reported and in many cases were based on goals rather than outcomes.\25\ A 2012 report by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) confirms the very small scale of commercial jatropha oil production in India.\26\ More recently, multiple companies working to commercialize jatropha in parts of Asia also confirmed that, while several large projects were planned in Southeast Asia, they have all since been scaled back to pilot projects or abandoned for funding and other reasons.\27\ For these reasons, our analysis of the GHG emissions attributable to jatropha oil produced as biofuel feedstock for the RFS program does not project jatropha oil production from Asia. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Wahl et al. 2012. \24\ Letter from Cosmo Biofuels Group, ``Jatropha RFS2 Pathway Petition Insights Into Jatropha Projects Worldwide.'' February 7, 2014 \25\ For example, a review of jatropha promotion in India is provided in Kumar, S., Chaube, A., Jain, S., K. 2012. ``Critical review of jatropha biodiesel promotion policies in India. Energy Policy, 41: 775-781. \26\ USDA-FAS. 2012. India Biofuels Annual. Global Agricultural Information Network. GAIN Report Number: IN2081. \27\ Letter from BEI International, LLC, ``Jatropha RFS2 Pathway Petition Insights Into Jatropha Projects Worldwide.'' January 9, 2014. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Africa is another region with significant potential for jatropha production. However, we decided not to model jatropha oil from Africa in our analysis. First, there is uncertainty about whether African jatropha oil production would qualify as renewable biomass, because it is not clear that the land where it would be grown could be considered existing agricultural land, as required in the CAA to qualify as renewable biomass.\28\ Furthermore, according to one agricultural trade expert, it is viewed as unlikely for economic reasons that Africa would be a significant exporter of jatropha oil to the United States by the year 2022, in part because it would require the development of a new and potentially costly infrastructure to grow, process, and transport the feedstock or fuel to the United States.\29\ For these reasons, our analysis of the GHG emissions attributable to jatropha oil produced as biofuel feedstock for the RFS program does not project jatropha oil production from Africa, and we seek comment on this approach. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ See the definition of renewable biomass at 40 CFR 80.1401. \29\ Conversation with Bruce Babcock, January 8, 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although we are specifically modelling jatropha growth and transport in Mexico and Brazil, and expect most jatropha oil used as renewable fuel feedstock for the RFS program to be grown in those countries, we intend to apply our analysis of the GHG emissions attributable to jatropha oil production and transport when evaluating facility-specific petitions that propose to use jatropha oil as biofuel feedstock, regardless of the country of origin where their jatropha oil feedstock is grown. In the future, some jatropha oil feedstock used to produce biofuels for the RFS may be sourced from countries other than Mexico and Brazil, but this would be unlikely to change our overall assessment of the aggregate GHG impacts from growing and transporting jatropha oil. Consistent with EPA's approach for previous RFS pathway analyses, we will periodically reevaluate whether our assessment of GHG impacts will need to be updated in the future based on new information or a new methodology that has the potential to significantly change our assessment. C. Cultivation and Harvesting Our assessment includes the GHG emissions attributable to growing and harvesting jatropha seeds, including field preparation, planting, annual inputs and harvesting, and replanting. We also estimate the average yields, in terms of tonnes of dry jatropha seed per hectare, in both Mexico and Brazil. The GHG emissions associated with cultivation and harvesting are the same, per tonne of delivered jatropha oil, in both of the main scenarios that we evaluated, as the type of land converted is not expected to impact the emissions from these stages of jatropha oil production. The data for our evaluation of these stages of jatropha oil production came from the GCEH petition, as well as EPA's literature review and our previous lifecycle GHG assessments for the RFS program. The values and calculations in our analysis are discussed briefly here and in more [[Page 61411]] detail in a technical memorandum to the docket.\30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ For more details see ``Jatropha Supporting Data and Assumptions'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seed and Oil Yields. For the purposes of this analysis, we project that in 2022, on average, one hectare of jatropha in southern Mexico will yield five tonnes of dry jatropha seeds per year, while one hectare in Brazil will yield four tonnes per hectare. For Mexico, five tonnes per hectare reflects a middle to upper bound estimate of recorded yields in the literature, and is also supported by information provided in the GCEH petition for current yields. We view five tonnes per hectare as a conservative estimate of yields in the year 2022 because intensive jatropha cultivation is relatively new, with significant room for potential advances through genetics, breeding and improved agronomic practices. There are fewer recorded observed yields in northeastern Brazil; however, based on evidence from our literature review of environmental and climate characteristics, we expect jatropha yield in this region will be somewhat lower than yields in southern Mexico.\31\ Given the potential for scientific breakthroughs to produce yield improvements for jatropha, we also consider this a conservative projection for 2022 yields in Brazil. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ See for example Trabucco et al. 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the information discussed in Section III-E below, we assume that after crushing, pre-treatment and transport, each tonne of dry jatropha seeds yields 0.26 tonnes of jatropha oil delivered to a biofuel production facility. (This figure is used to convert cultivation and harvesting GHG emissions from kgCO2 e per hectare of jatropha production to kgCO2 e per tonne of delivered oil.) Preparation and Planting. When jatropha is first planted, chemical and energy inputs are required. For our analysis, we used average inputs of nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, herbicide, and diesel use from data in the GCEH petition, as shown in Table III-1.\32\ In Brazil, lime is also added as a soil amendment during preparation and planting, \33\ although it is not required in many parts of southern Mexico.\34\ While there is relatively little data available on the inputs and energy requirements for the preparation and planting stages of jatropha, the values provided in the GCEH petition were within the range of other values that we found through literature review.\35\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ Table III-1 shows the average results for a scenario with equal amounts of jatropha output (by mass) in Mexico and Brazil. \33\ Bailis, R. E. and J. E. Baka. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions and land use change from Jatropha curcas-based jet fuel in Brazil. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(22) 8684-8691. \34\ Lime is required in Brazil because the soils there are highly acidic, but it is not required in southern Mexico where the native soil pH is well-suited for jatropha. \35\ We consider the crop input data used in our assessment to be conservative because they result in greater estimate GHG emissions per tonne of oil produced than most of the other data we reviewed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We assumed that jatropha has a 20 year crop cycle, meaning that every 20 years the existing jatropha plants are removed and the crop is replanted.\36\ Therefore, the GHG emissions associated with preparation and planting occur every 20 years. Annualized emissions from preparation and planting are shown in Table III-1. We estimate total GHG emissions from jatropha preparation and planting of 66.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (kgCO2 e) per ton of jatropha oil that has been harvested, extracted, pre-treated to lower acidity and delivered to a biofuel producer (``delivered jatropha oil''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ For more details see ``Jatropha Supporting Data and Assumptions'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. Table III-1--Annualized GHG Emissions From Preparation and Planting [kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GHG Inputs per hectare emissions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nitrogen fertilizer................ 0.07 kg............... 0.01 Phosphorus fertilizer.............. 0.02 kg............... 0.001 Potassium fertilizer............... 0.09 kg............... 0.003 Herbicide.......................... 1.2 gal............... 1.8 Lime............................... 1.1 tonnes............ 21.3 Diesel............................. 79.3 gal.............. 43.5 ------------------------------------ Total Annualized Emissions..... ...................... 66.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Annual Inputs and Harvesting. After the jatropha fields are prepared and planted, there are annual GHG emissions associated with applying crop inputs and harvesting the jatropha seeds. To estimate the average annual emissions from these activities we assumed an average twenty year replanting cycle, meaning that in any given year five percent of the jatropha fields will be in the replanting stage, and therefore have zero emissions associated with annual crop inputs and harvesting. Table III-2 summarizes the emissions from these activities. Annual Fertilizer and Pesticide Inputs. The GCEH petition states that some of the husks from the jatropha fruits are used for fertilizer. In addition, the seedcake produced after pressing oil from the seeds can be used as an organic fertilizer. We assumed that fertilizer inputs would have to at least make up for nutrients lost from harvesting the jatropha fruits.\37\ Using literature values for nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium in jatropha fruits, husks, and seedcake,\38\ and our projected seed yield, we determined that the jatropha husks and seedcake have nearly enough nutrients to replace the nutrients lost from harvesting the seed fruit. We assume that growers will apply 9.3 kilograms per hectare of additional inorganic fertilizer to replace the lost nutrients from harvesting, which is within the range of literature values and similar to the data provided by GCEH. We also assumed use of small amounts of pesticide, herbicide and insecticide based on information from the peer reviewed literature.\39\ The GHG emissions associated with fertilizer and pesticide use were estimated using the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule.\40\ Table III-2 shows the GHG emissions from annual fertilizer and pesticide use, not including nitrous oxide emissions that occur after they are applied to the field (which is discussed separately, below). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ Bailis and Baka 2010 used the same approach to estimate fertilizer requirements. \38\ Bailis, R. E. and J. E. Baka. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions and land use change from Jatropha curcas-based jet fuel in Brazil. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(22) 8684-8691. \39\ Bailis, R. E. and J. E. Baka. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions and land use change from Jatropha curcas-based jet fuel in Brazil. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(22) 8684-8691. \40\ See Section 2.4.3.1 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annual Energy Use. In addition to chemical inputs, energy will be used annually for irrigation, and to power equipment used for field maintenance and harvesting. For the annual diesel, gasoline and electricity inputs, we used values provided in the GCEH petition, which are within the range of values EPA found through literature review.\41\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\ Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil Production and Transport GHG Emissions, Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015- 0293. Table III-2 GHG Emissions From Annual Inputs and Harvesting [kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GHG Inputs (per ha) emissions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nitrogen fertilizer................ 9.3 kg................ 27.8 Phosphorus fertilizer.............. 9.3 kg................ 9.5 Potassium fertilizer............... 9.3 kg................ 6.3 Herbicide.......................... 0.5 kg................ 11.5 [[Page 61412]] Fungicide-Bacteriocide............. 0.02 L................ 0.01 Pesticide.......................... 0.06 L................ 0.7 Diesel............................. 15.6 gal.............. 162.5 Gasoline........................... 1.6 gal............... 14.8 Electricity........................ 184 kWh............... 40.9 Total.......................... ...................... 274.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Annual Nitrous-Oxide Emissions. Nitrous oxide (N2 O) is emitted from nitrogen fertilizer and from parts of the jatropha plant that are left on the field to decay or applied as fertilizer (``jatropha residues''). The jatropha residues can be divided into three categories: (1) Husks that are applied to the field as fertilizer, (2) seedcake that is applied to the field as fertilizer, and (3) above and below ground biomass from the jatropha plant (e.g., the trunk, branches, leaves, and roots). The above and below ground biomass from the jatropha plant becomes a plant residue every 20 years, when the old plants are removed and new plants are planted. For each of these categories of jatropha residues, we used equations and factors from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to calculate direct and indirect N2 O emissions, and we annualized them by dividing by 20.\42\ Estimated annual emissions from fertilizer and plant residues are shown in Table III-3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \42\ Direct emissions are emitted from the jatropha plantation, whereas indirect emissions occur for material that has moved to another location (e.g., through leaching or runoff) before it produces N2 O or a pre-cursor of N2 O. For crop residues, such as above and below ground biomass, direct emissions occur when the plant material decays. Table III-3--N2O Emissions From Fertilizer and Jatropha Residues [kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GHG emissions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fertilizer, direct......................................... 37.4 Fertilizer, indirect....................................... 12.2 Husks, direct.............................................. 51.5 Husks, indirect............................................ 11.6 Seedcake, direct........................................... 281.7 Seedcake, indirect......................................... 63.4 Above and below ground biomass, direct..................... 204.7 Above and below ground biomass, indirect................... 46.0 Total.................................................. 709.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table III-4 provides a summary of the average GHG emissions attributable to growing and harvesting jatropha in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil. Each of the emissions categories listed in the table are explained above in this section. Table III-4 GHG Emissions Attributable to Growing and Harvesting Jatropha [kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GHG Emissions Category emissions ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Preparation and Planting................................... 67 Annual Inputs and Harvesting............................... 274 Nitrous Oxide Emissions.................................... 709 Total.................................................. 1,050 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ D. Land Use Change and Agricultural Sector Emissions As explained in Section III-B, above, we believe that southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil are the most likely locations for commercial-scale production of jatropha for use in making biofuels for the RFS program. According to the GCEH petition, there are large areas of grasslands in southern Mexico that are suitable areas for jatropha production. These areas were used for crop production or pasture, but they are now fallow or used for very low intensity grazing. For example, Skutsch et al. evaluated jatropha land use change impacts in Yucatan, Mexico and found two plantations that had been planted on estates that had previously been used for low-intensity grazing.\43\ There are also grasslands in northeastern Brazil that are suitable for jatropha production, although much of this land may currently be in use as pasture. For example, Bailis and Baka surveyed jatropha producers in northeastern Brazil and found that the producers they approached had primarily planted their jatropha on pasture land.\44\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ Skutsch, M., E. de los Rios, S. Solis, E. Riegelhaupt, D. Hinojosa, S. Gerfert, Y. Gao, and O. Masera. 2011. ``Jatropha in Mexico: Environmental and Social Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel Program.'' Ecology and Society 16(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-04448- 160411. \44\ Bailis, R.E. and J.E. Baka. 2010. ``Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change from Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil.'' Environmental Science & Technology 44(22):8684-8691. doi:10.1021/es1019178. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on this information, the first scenario we evaluated for land use change emissions considers jatropha production on grasslands that would otherwise not be used for crops or pasture. In a second scenario, we used economic modeling to look at the potential land use change and agricultural sector emissions (including indirect emissions) of growing jatropha on land that would otherwise be used for crops or pasture. Jatropha on Currently Unused Grassland Scenario. Analyzing the land use change emissions associated with growing jatropha on grassland that is not currently being used for agricultural purposes requires estimates of the carbon sequestered by the jatropha plantations, as compared to the grasslands they would replace. We estimated the average amount of biomass carbon sequestered by jatropha plantations in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil, projected out to 2022. Jatropha biomass carbon stocks were estimated using available scientific information from the literature. Reinhardt et al. measured basic data about jatropha plants, such as root to shoot ratios and biomass carbon content. Bailis and Baka used the data from Reinhardt et al. to estimate biomass carbon stocks for different jatropha yield scenarios. Using our projected jatropha yields of 5 and 4 tonnes per hectare per year for Mexico and Brazil respectively (the basis for these projections is discussed above), we used the Bailis and Baka approach to estimate average biomass carbon stocks of 8.9 and 8.1 tonnes per hectare for ten year old jatropha plantations in Mexico and Brazil, respectively. Per the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule, we translated these estimates into average biomass carbon stocks over 30 years. Assuming linear growth rates, a 20 year replanting cycle and pruning of any growth after 10 years to ensure fruit accessibility, we estimated average jatropha plantation biomass carbon stocks over 30 years to be 6.9 and 6.3 tonnes per hectare for Mexico and Brazil respectively.\45\ These values are within the range of estimates in the literature for jatropha plantations in these regions.\46\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \45\ For details on this calculation see ``Jatropha Oil Production and Transport GHG Calculations'' spreadsheet on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. \46\ For a comparison with other values in the literature see Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil Production and Transport GHG Emissions, Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For comparison, based on our analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule we estimate that grasslands in Mexico and Brazil contain approximately 4.1 and 10.9 tonnes of carbon per hectare, respectively. For our first scenario, we looked at the land use change and agricultural sector emissions associated with growing jatropha on grassland in Mexico and Brazil that would not otherwise be used for crop production or pasture. Comparing the carbon stocks [[Page 61413]] of jatropha and the grassland it replaces, we estimate that growing jatropha on grassland in Mexico results in a net carbon sequestration, or negative emissions, because the jatropha plantation sequesters more carbon on average over thirty years. Conversely, planting jatropha on grassland in Brazil results in a net carbon emission. Specifically, for jatropha grown on otherwise unused grasslands in Mexico and Brazil we estimate land use change emissions of negative 268 and positive 550 kgCO2 e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil, respectively. Looking at a scenario in which we assume an equal amount of growth of jatropha from unused grasslands in Mexico and Brazil results in land use change emissions of 141 kgCO2 e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil. (For comparison, for the March 2010 RFS rule we estimated land use change emissions of 1,158 kgCO2 e per tonne of soybean oil used for biofuel.) In this scenario there are no indirect agricultural sector emissions, such as from indirect impacts on crop or livestock production, because jatropha is not an agricultural commodity, and the displaced land would not otherwise have been used for commodity production. Jatropha on Agricultural Land Scenario. In the second scenario we evaluated, we assumed jatropha would be grown on land that would otherwise be used to grow crops or for pasture. In this case jatropha production would impact market prices for the crops and livestock it displaces, leading to other indirect effects. For example, one of the likely indirect impacts would be to increase crop and livestock production in other locations to make up for the production displaced by jatropha. As we have done for the other RFS analyses, we estimated the size of these impacts with an agricultural sector model. For our agricultural sector modeling of jatropha oil, we used a similar approach to the one we used for sugarcane in the March 2010 RFS rule, in which agricultural sector modeling was conducted using only the FAPRI-CARD model, and not the Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM). For other feedstocks (e.g., corn, soybeans, grain sorghum), we used FASOM to model domestic forestry and agricultural impacts in addition to using the FAPRI-CARD model for international impacts. Similar to sugarcane, for jatropha we only used the FAPRI-CARD model because we do not expect jatropha to be grown in the United States as a biofuel feedstock for the RFS program. To date, jatropha has not achieved a significant presence in global agricultural markets. For example, EPA is not aware that it is traded on any agricultural exchange, and there does not appear to be any publicly available data on jatropha prices or trade flows. These limitations create significant difficulties when attempting to model jatropha in an agro-economic framework, such as the FAPRI-CARD model. The creation of robust assumptions for production costs at various levels of production (i.e., production cost curves), as well as estimates for supply and demand at various prices (i.e., supply curves and demand curves), depends upon these types of historical data. We considered building production cost curves for jatropha oil based on land, crop yield, and crop input data. However, for jatropha, production cost data are limited to a very small number of companies and regions, making it difficult to estimate or project how much jatropha oil could be produced at various production cost levels. We also have limited information to determine the price that jatropha might command on the open market, or the extent to which it might be competitive with other planted crops for acreage. Without this information, it is not possible to form supply and demand curves for jatropha in the FAPRI-CARD model, which the model typically uses for other crops that we have evaluated to project where and in what quantities jatropha will be grown. Because of these limitations, EPA applied a slightly modified methodology in this analysis. For other crops that EPA has evaluated for the RFS program, we have used the FAPRI-CARD model to project international agricultural sector impacts by running different biofuel volume scenarios and allowing the model to decide where to grow the additional crops needed to produce the biofuel volumes. Because of the data limitations regarding jatropha, the FAPRI-CARD model is not able to decide where to grow jatropha or what other types of land uses to displace for its production. Therefore, to model the agricultural sector impacts of expanding jatropha production, we exogenously specified how much and what types of land it would displace in Mexico and Brazil. The FAPRI- CARD model then estimated how the crops and pasture displaced by jatropha would be made up elsewhere via crop switching, land conversion and other market-mediated effects. First, similar to our modeling for other feedstocks, we used available information to project the amount of jatropha oil produced as biofuel feedstock for the RFS program in the year 2022. We developed two analyses for the production of 130 million gallons of biodiesel in 2022, one where all of the jatropha oil is produced in Mexico (the ``Mexico only case'') and one where the jatropha oil production is split evenly between Mexico and Brazil (the ``Mexico and Brazil case''). Although there is limited historical data available to use as the basis for formulating jatropha oil volume scenarios for modeling, we believe that a total production level of 130 million gallons of biodiesel in 2022 is sufficiently large to produce robust estimates of agricultural and GHG impacts in the FAPRI-CARD model, while still being feasible. As described elsewhere in this notice, we conservatively project that in 2022 Mexico and Brazil will have delivered jatropha oil yields of 1.3 and 1.0 tonnes per hectare per year, respectively.\47\ Based on these oil yields, in the Mexico only case the production of enough jatropha oil feedstock to produce 130 million gallons of biodiesel would require approximately 350 thousand hectares of jatropha production in Mexico. In the Mexico and Brazil case, we modeled approximately 172 thousand hectares of jatropha in Mexico and 216 thousand hectares in Brazil.\48\ The results of our modeling are based on a comparison of this jatropha production case to a control case that included no jatropha oil production. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \47\ Based on projected average 2022 dry seed yields in Mexico and Brazil of five and four tonnes per hectare, respectively. We also assume that dry seeds have 35% oil content, 75% oil extraction efficiency and a 1.4 percent loss from oil pre-treatment. \48\ Given the yields for Mexico and Brazil described above, these cultivation areas correspond with 65 million gallons of jatropha oil biodiesel each from Mexican and Brazilian jatropha oil production, for a total of 130 million gallons. The specific underlying assumptions and calculations that produced these figures are available in the docket for this notice at EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To model the agricultural sector impacts of jatropha production in Mexico, we specified in the FAPRI-CARD model the area and types of crop land that jatropha would displace. Based on the information provided in the GCEH petition and collected through EPA's literature review, jatropha production in southern Mexico will most likely occur in the states of Yucatan, Chiapas and Oaxaca because they offer the most suitable climate conditions and available land. Over 80 percent of the agricultural land in this area is used for corn production, with smaller areas devoted to specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices.\49\ We do not expect jatropha to [[Page 61414]] displace the higher value specialty crops, so we focused our analysis on the land used for commodity crops: corn, grain sorghum, soybeans and wheat. We then specified in the FAPRI-CARD model that jatropha will displace these staple crops based on their current share of land used for commodity crops: 96 percent corn, two percent grain sorghum, and one percent each of soybeans and wheat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\ Mexico Information Service for Agribusiness and Fisheries (SIAP), http://www.siap.gob.mx/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Brazil we used a slightly different approach to take advantage of the fact that the FAPRI-CARD model for Brazil is significantly more detailed than the Mexico module. As explained above, based on EPA's literature review we determined that jatropha production in Brazil would predominantly occur in the northeastern part of the country, which correlates with the Northeast Coast and North-Northeast Cerrados regions in the FAPRI-CARD Brazil module. Unlike the Mexico part of the FAPRI-CARD model, the Brazil module includes crop and pasture land, and allows for switching between the two. Instead of specifying how much of each type of crop and pasture to displace with jatropha, we specified the area needed for jatropha production and allowed the FAPRI-CARD model to project the land used for jatropha production. Table III-5 summarizes the land use changes projected in our modeling. We evaluated two cases: one involving jatropha production only in Mexico, and the other involving production in both Brazil and Mexico. In both cases, the land use impacts in Mexico are the replacement of other crops (primarily corn) with jatropha. In the Brazil and Mexico case, jatropha is planted on roughly three-quarters pasture and one-quarter crop land in Brazil. In both cases, the rest of the world (outside of Mexico and Brazil) increases its crop area. However, globally the total area devoted to non-jatropha crops and pasture decreases. Overall, the rest of the world expands their agricultural land (the sum of crop and pasture land including jatropha), meaning that other types of land, including unmanaged grassland and forest, are converted for agricultural uses. Table III-5--Projected Land Use Changes by Case in 2022 [Thousand hectares] \50\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crop Land ------------------------------------------------- Pasture Jatropha Other Crops All Crops ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mexico Only Case ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mexico........................................ 345 (345) 0 0 Brazil........................................ 0 9 9 (5) Rest of World................................. 0 114 114 (63) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................................... 345 (222) 123 (68) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brazil and Mexico Case ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mexico........................................ 172 (172) 0 0 Brazil........................................ 216 (62) 154 (154) Rest of World................................. 0 81 81 (49) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................................... 388 (153) 235 (203) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table III-6 summarizes the projected changes in the production of corn, soybeans and sugarcane, the crops with the largest changes in the cases we simulated. In both cases, there is a reduction in the total area of corn but an increase in the amount of corn produced. This is the result of corn production shifting to regions with higher yields, particularly the United States. In both cases, there is a reduction in the area and production of soybeans and sugarcane. All of these changes are less than 0.1% of projected crop production in 2022. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \50\ For the tables in this Notice, the numbers in parentheses are negative and the totals may not sum due to rounding. Table III-6--Projected Crop Production Changes by Case in 2022 [Thousand metric tonnes] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corn Soybeans Sugarcane ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mexico Only Case ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mexico....................................................... (1,151) (9) 0 Brazil....................................................... 292 103 (51) United States................................................ 738 (97) 5 China........................................................ 115 (1) (7) Rest of World................................................ 185 (8) (4) -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................... 178 (12) (58) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mexico and Brazil Case ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mexico....................................................... (578) (4) 0 Brazil....................................................... 110 22 (300) United States................................................ 375 (37) 2 [[Page 61415]] China........................................................ 62 1 (2) Rest of World................................................ 101 1 54 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................... 70 (18) (246) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table III-7 summarizes the projected impacts on global meat production. In both of the cases, meat production declines. These changes are on the order of approximately 0.01%, or less, of projected global livestock production in 2022. Table III-7--Changes in Global Meat Production by Case in 2022 [thousand metric tonnes] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mexico Brazil and only case Mexico Case ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beef.......................................... (0.4) (4.1) Pork.......................................... (9.4) (5.7) Poultry....................................... (10.0) (5.8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Overall, the projected agricultural sector impacts in 2022 of growing jatropha on agricultural land in Mexico and Brazil in the two cases we evaluated can be summarized as a reduction in crop and pasture land in Mexico and Brazil which triggers an increase in crop area in other countries. Just over half of the increase in crop area in other countries comes at the expense of pasture land, with the rest coming from other types of land, including unmanaged grassland and forest. Globally, corn production increases, while soybean, sugarcane and meat production declines. Detailed modeling results and further explanation are provided in the docket for this notice,\51\ and we welcome comments on all aspects of our analysis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \51\ Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil Production and Transport GHG Emissions, Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015- 0293. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To estimate the GHG emissions associated with the land use changes summarized in Table III-5, EPA used the same methodology as developed for the March 2010 RFS rule. Per this methodology, the crop and pasture area changes in 2022 derived from the FAPRI-CARD model were evaluated with Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite data to project what types of land (e.g., grassland, savanna, forest) would be converted to agricultural land (crops and pasture) in regions where the FAPRI-CARD model projected agricultural expansion. For these projections we used the satellite data to determine what types of land have been converted to crops and pasture in each region, and then applied those land use change patterns to the agricultural changes projected by the FAPRI-CARD modeling. Land use change GHG emissions were then estimated over 30 years using emission factors derived from various data sources accounting for average carbon stocks on eight types of land in 755 distinct regions.\52\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \52\ See Section 2.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The land use change GHG emissions are summarized in Table III-8, including results for both the Mexico only and Mexico and Brazil cases. The results are broken out regionally by Mexico, Brazil, and Rest of World, because as discussed above, the great majority of land use change impacts came from Mexico and Brazil. Table III-8 also includes the total emissions for the low and high ends of the 95% confidence range for land use change GHG emissions, based on the land use change uncertainty analysis methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule, which considers the uncertainty in the satellite data and land use change emissions factors used in our assessment. Table III-8--Land Use Change GHG Emissions by Case in 2022 [kgCO2e per tonne delivered jatropha oil] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mexico Brazil and Only case Mexico Case ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mexico...................................... (2,795) (1,397) Brazil...................................... 843 636 Rest of World............................... 569 356 Total (Mean)................................ (1,383) (406) Total (Low)................................. (3,725) (1,827) Total (High)................................ 612 809 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In both cases, the mean values suggest negative land use change emissions (net sequestration) associated with growing jatropha on agricultural land. This is due primarily to the net sequestration that we project from replacing corn fields with jatropha plantations in Mexico. Per our analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule, corn in Mexico has average biomass carbon stocks of five tonnes per hectare.\53\ In our assessment average jatropha plantation biomass carbon stocks are 6.9 tonnes per hectare, so every hectare of corn replaced by jatropha increases biomass carbon by 1.9 tonnes (including both above- and below-ground biomass). Additionally, converting corn to jatropha results in additional soil carbon sequestration. Due to the reduced tillage and increased biomass returned to the soil for jatropha (tree litter and prunings) compared to corn, we estimate that after 20 years jatropha would add approximately 27.7 tonnes of soil carbon per hectare compared to corn production in Mexico.\54\ Therefore, annualized over thirty years we estimate that replacing corn with jatropha in Mexico would result in additional soil sequestration of approximately 1.0 tonnes of carbon per hectare. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \53\ See Section 2.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. \54\ Based on the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule, the soil carbon stocks reach equilibrium after 20 years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In both cases, we project positive land use change emissions in Brazil and other countries. We project land use change emissions in Brazil for a number of reasons. In the Mexico only case, Brazil expands its crop production to backfill for some of the lost production in Mexico. Some of this crop expansion occurs on pasture, which results in net land use change emissions from both biomass and soil carbon, and some of the crop expansion occurs on other types of land, including forests. In particular, the FAPRI-CARD model projects crop and pasture expansion in the Amazon, an area with particularly high carbon stocks, resulting in large emissions per hectare of conversion. In the Brazil and Mexico case, the expansion of jatropha onto corn or soybean land results in a net sequestration, but this net sequestration is smaller than the emissions associated with replacing sugarcane and pasture with jatropha. [[Page 61416]] In both cases, we also project land use change emissions from the rest of the world (all regions other than Mexico and Brazil). In our modeling the main impact in other countries is increased crop production to respond to higher prices and to backfill for some of the lost production from Mexico and Brazil. The additional cropland replaces some pasture and some other types of land, including unmanaged grasslands and forests, which results in net land use change emissions. For this second scenario, our analysis also considers indirect emissions associated with changes in fertilizer, pesticide and energy use for crop production, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions associated with changes in crop production. The sources of indirect livestock emissions include emissions from energy use for livestock production, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions associated with raising cattle, dairy cows, swine and poultry. The emissions for indirect crop production were estimated based on international crop input data and emission factors developed and peer reviewed for the March 2010 RFS rule. The livestock emissions factors are from the IPCC. In the first main scenario we evaluated, where jatropha production occurs on grassland that is not otherwise used for crop production or grazing, there are no indirect emissions associated with changes in fertilizer, pesticide and energy use for crop production, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions associated with changes in crop production. In the second scenario, where jatropha is grown on agricultural land, there are indirect emissions associated with how the agricultural sector responds to the displacement of crop and grazing land for jatropha. Table III-9 summarizes the indirect crop production and livestock emissions impacts for both of the cases we evaluated for scenario two. Indirect agricultural emissions are negative in both cases, primarily because of emission reductions from decreased corn production in Mexico. Indirect livestock emissions are negative, because as shown in Table III-7, we project reductions in meat production in the cases evaluated. Table III-9--Indirect Crop Production and Livestock Emissions by Case in 2022 [kgCO2e per tonne delivered jatropha oil] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mexico Mexico and only case Brazil case ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Indirect Crop Production...................... (431) (338) Indirect Livestock............................ (125) (392) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table III-10 summarizes the land use change, and agricultural sector emissions in the two main scenarios that we evaluated. Note that this table does not include the emissions associated with cultivation and harvesting discussed above in Section III-C. Table III-10--Land Use Change and Indirect Agricultural Sector Emissions by Scenario in 2022 [kgCO2e per tonne delivered jatropha oil] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario Jatropha produced Jatropha produced on agricultural ------------------------------------------------------- on unused land grassland in ------------------------------------ Case Mexico in Brazil Mexico only Mexico and Brazil ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land Use Change....................................... 141 (1,383) (406) Indirect Crop Production.............................. ................... (431) (338) Indirect Livestock.................................... ................... (125) (392) --------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................. 141 (1,940) (1,136) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E. Feedstock Transport and Processing Producing fuels from jatropha requires oil to be first extracted from its seeds, and then refined into a finished fuel product. Oil can either be expelled from the seeds by mechanical treatment or extracted using chemical solvents. There are two commonly used types of mechanical expellers, the screw press and the ram press. The screw press is typically used, and is somewhat more efficient at expelling oil (75-80% yield) than the ram press (60-65% yield). Up to three passes is common to achieve these yields. Certain pretreatments of jatropha seeds, such as cooking, can increase the expelled oil yield to 89% after a single pass using a screw press and 91% after a second pass. Chemical extraction can achieve greater oil yields than mechanical expulsion. (The most commonly used chemical extraction method, the n-hexane method, can achieve yields of 99%). However, chemical extraction is capital intensive and only economical at very large scales of production. According to Bailis and Baka, all jatropha oil produced in Brazil is extracted by screw press at one facility. Based on our review of available literature, EPA's evaluation considered oil recovery from jatropha seeds to occur via screw press mechanical expulsion assuming oil yield of 75% and seed oil content of 35%.\55\ Based on reported electricity and fuel demands for jatropha oil extraction, we estimate that oil extraction results in emissions of 175 kgCO2 e per ton of delivered jatropha oil.\56\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \55\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production: Literature Review and Synthesis'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293. \56\ For details on this calculation see the ``Jatropha Lifecycle GHG Calculations'' spreadsheet on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015- 0293. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our evaluation also considers emissions associated with pretreating the jatropha oil.\57\ Based on data provided in the GCEH petition, we evaluated the emissions from jatropha oil pretreatment with chemicals (typically sodium hydroxide) to lower its acid content, and electricity used to heat the reaction.\58\ The outputs from the pre-treatment process are pre-treated jatropha oil, soapstock and filter cake. The pre-treated jatropha oil is ready for transport and use as a biodiesel feedstock. The soapstock and filter cake are low value byproducts, and as a conservative approach we model them as resulting in no GHG emissions impacts, i.e., we do not give a displacement credit for these byproducts. We estimate the GHG [[Page 61417]] emissions from pre-treatment are approximately 4.7 kgCO2 e per ton of delivered jatropha oil. Pretreatment may occur at the oil extraction facility or the biofuel production facility, so it may be appropriate for EPA to revise the pre-treatment emissions on a case-by- case basis when evaluating petitions from specific biofuel production facilities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \57\ Other vegetable oils that EPA has approved as feedstocks, including soybean oil, commonly undergo similar pre-treatment before they are converted to biofuels. The oil recovered after pretreatment is still chemically jatropha oil. \58\ The pre-treatment data provided in the GCEH petition is within the range of values EPA found in the literature. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For our GHG analysis, we assumed that jatropha is produced, and the jatropha oil is extracted and pre-treated in Mexico and Brazil, and that the pre-treated oil is then transported to the United States for use as biofuel feedstock. First, we calculate the emissions associated with transporting the jatropha seed 20 miles by truck to a facility where the crude jatropha is extracted via screw press and then pre- treated. The truck is loaded with kernel shells and seedcake and returns 20 miles to the plantation. The pre-treated jatropha oil is transported 75 miles by truck to a port and then shipped 500 miles by barge to a port in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. For this scenario we estimate the seed transport emissions to be 24 kgCO2 e/mmBtu and the oil transport emissions to be 10 kgCO2 e/mmBtu. For our analysis, the distances and modes for seed and oil transport are based on data provided in the GCEH petition for jatropha production in Yucatan, Mexico. We believe these values are also reasonable to apply for jatropha production in other regions, including Brazil. This jatropha oil transport scenario was developed based on the best currently-available information, but may need to be adjusted when EPA evaluates individual petitions if the petitioner's jatropha oil feedstocks are delivered via a significantly different route than the one EPA modeled. F. Potential Invasiveness Jatropha is not currently widespread in the United States, and is not listed on the federal noxious weed list.\59\ A recent weed risk assessment by USDA found that jatropha has a moderate risk of invasiveness in the United States.\60\ Its seeds are toxic to animals and humans, and it is considered a weed in anthropogenic production and natural systems. Jatropha is a perennial plant, meaning that if a grove is abandoned, seeds would still be produced. In addition, jatropha can regrow from its roots. For these reasons, and in consultation with USDA, the use of jatropha as a biofuel feedstock raises concerns about its threat of invasiveness and whether its production could require remediation activities that would be associated with additional GHG emissions. Therefore, similar to EPA's actions with respect to other biofuel feedstocks found to present invasiveness risks, such as Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum, EPA anticipates that any petition approvals for renewable fuel pathways involving the use of jatropha oil as feedstock will include requirements related to mitigating risks associated with invasiveness. However, based on our consultations with USDA, EPA does not believe that the requirements for jatropha are likely to be as stringent as those for Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum, because, in the judgment of USDA, the risk of invasiveness for jatropha is likely to be smaller than for these two other feedstocks.\61\ A fuel producer may alternatively demonstrate that there is not a significant likelihood of spread beyond the planted area, or that the species will be grown and processed in its native range where no or little risk of impact is expected if it spreads from planting sites. As outlined in the rule published on July 11, 2013 (78 FR 41702) for Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum, the fuel producer would need a letter from USDA that concludes that jatropha does not pose a spread of risk beyond the planted area. With these requirements in place, we would assume that there are no GHG emissions associated with potential invasiveness when jatropha oil is used as a biofuel feedstock. EPA is taking comment on the invasiveness concerns of jatropha and the appropriateness of the referenced requirements in mitigating those concerns. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \59\ USDA (2014). ``Federal Noxious Weed List.'' Available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf. \60\ USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2015). ``Weed risk assessment for Jatropha curcas L. (Euphorbiaceae)-- Physic nut.'' The weed risk assessment classifies jatropha as ``evaluate further,'' which means it poses a moderate risk of invasiveness. \61\ For details on the requirements imposed on Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum, see the rule published on July 11, 2013 (78 FR 41702), http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-11/pdf/2013-16488.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- G. Summary of GHG Emissions From Jatropha Oil Production and Transport The results of our analysis of the GHG emissions associated with jatropha oil production and transport are summarized in Table III-11. The table summarizes the results for the two main scenarios that we evaluated: the first scenario where jatropha is grown on unused grassland in Mexico and Brazil and a second scenario where it is grown on agricultural land. For the second scenario, results are summarized for two cases: the first with jatropha production on agricultural land in Mexico, and the second with jatropha production on agricultural land in Mexico and Brazil. For comparison, Table III-11 also includes a summary of soybean oil production and transport GHG emissions as estimated for the March 2010 RFS rule. (Some emissions categories for the soybean results have been combined to align as much as possible with the jatropha results.) The results summarized in Table III-11 show that based on the scenarios we evaluated, the GHG emissions associated with producing and transporting jatropha oil as a biofuel feedstock are less than similar emissions for soybean oil. When evaluating petitions to use jatropha oil as biofuel feedstock we would also consider GHG emissions from fuel production and fuel distribution, in addition to the emissions summarized in Table III-11 (adjusted as appropriate for petitioners' individual circumstances). The agency also conducted an uncertainty analysis and estimated the 95 percent confidence range for each of the scenarios evaluated. For this evaluation, we used the same methodology and spreadsheet model used for the March 2010 RFS rule. For the unused grassland scenarios we considered the uncertainty in the emissions factors used in our analysis. For the agricultural land scenarios, we considered the uncertainty in both the range of potential values for the satellite data and land use change emissions factors used in our modeling. The low and high ends of the 95 percent confidence range are presented below in Table III-11, with results from the jatropha scenarios displayed along with the results from our soybean oil modeling for the March 2010 RFS rule. The range is narrowest for the unused grassland- only scenario because it does not incur uncertainty associated with using satellite data to project land use change patterns. Comparing the uncertainty estimates for the scenario with jatropha oil produced on agricultural land and the estimates for the soybean oil results, the confidence range is narrower for the soybean results because a greater proportion of the land use change impacts for soybeans are in regions and impact types of land where EPA has better quality data. We invite comment on our analysis and the results presented below. [[Page 61418]] Table III-11--Production and Transport GHG Emissions for Jatropha Oil [kgCO[ihel2]e per tonne of delivered oil] \62\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jatropha oil ------------------------------------------------------------ Emissions category Produced on Unused Produced on agricultural land Soybean oil grassland in Mexico --------------------------------------- and Brazil Mexico Only Mexico and Brazil ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Land Use Change.................... 141 (1,383) (406) 1,158 Preparation and Planting........... 67 40 67 (3) Annual Cultivation................. 983 964 983 Indirect Crop Production........... ................... (431) (338) Indirect Livestock................. ................... (125) (392) (291) Oil Extraction..................... 175 175 175 470 Oil Pre-Treatment.................. 5 5 5 Seed Transport..................... 24 24 24 91 Oil Transport...................... 10 10 10 Total.......................... 1,404 (721) 128 1,425 Low................................ 1,217 (3,063) (1,293) 470 High............................... 1,590 1,273 1,342 2,580 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the results summarized in Table III-11, we believe it is reasonable, as a conservative approach (and subject to confirmation upon review of individual petition submissions), to apply the GHG emissions estimates we established in the March 2010 rule for the production and transport of soybean oil to jatropha oil when evaluating future facility-specific petitions from biofuel producers seeking to generate RINs for volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil. While it is possible that jatropha could be grown on other types of land, such as shrubland or secondary forest, that would result in higher GHG emissions than the scenarios we evaluated, the RFS program's qualification requirements for renewable biomass would prevent the use of jatropha grown on such lands from use as an RFS renewable fuel feedstock. The renewable biomass definition would not prevent a scenario where jatropha is planted on agricultural land, and the displaced crops or pasturage is then shifted to shrubland or forestland. However, as discussed above, our modeling suggests that this scenario is not expected. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that the overall emissions attributable to the production and transportation of jatropha oil used to produce biofuels for the RFS program will be equal to or less than the same types of emissions attributable to soybean oil. We welcome public comments on all aspects of our assessment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \62\ Totals may not sum due to rounding. The ``Total'' results represents our mean estimates, and the ``Low'' and ``High'' results represent the low and high ends of the 95 percent confidence range. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- H. Fuel Production and Distribution Jatropha oil is suitable for the same conversion processes as soybean oil and other previously approved feedstocks for making biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas. In addition, the fuel yield per pound of oil is expected to be similar for fuel produced from jatropha oil and soybean oil through these processes. Jatropha may also be suitable for other conversion processes and types of fuel that EPA has not previously evaluated. After reviewing comments received in response to this action, we will combine our evaluation of agricultural sector GHG emissions associated with the use of jatropha oil feedstock with our evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with individual producers' production processes and finished fuels to determine whether any proposed pathway satisfies CAA lifecycle GHG emissions reduction requirements for RFS-qualifying renewable fuels. Each biofuel producer seeking to generate RINs for non-grandfathered volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil will first need to submit a petition requesting EPA's evaluation of their new renewable fuel pathway pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 of the RFS regulations, and include all of the information specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(1). Because EPA is evaluating the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil feedstock through this action and comment process, petitions requesting EPA's evaluation of biofuel pathways involving jatropha oil feedstock will not have to include the information for new feedstocks specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(2).\63\ Based on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions attributable to the production and transport of jatropha oil feedstock, EPA anticipates that fuel produced from jatropha oil feedstock through the same transesterification or hydrotreating process technologies that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil and the March 2013 RFS rule for biofuel derived from camelina oil would qualify for biomass-based diesel (D- code 4) RINs or advanced biofuel (D-code 5) RINs.\64\ However, EPA will evaluate petitions for fuel produced from jatropha oil feedstock on a case-by-case basis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \63\ For information on how to submit a petition for biofuel produced from jatropha oil see EPA's Web page titled ``How to Submit a Complete Petition'' (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/new-pathways/how-to-submit.htm) including the document on that Web page titled ``How to Prepare a Complete Petition.'' Petitions for biofuel produced from jatropha oil should include all of the applicable information outlined in Section 3 of the ``How to Prepare a Complete Petition'' document, but they do not need to provide the information outlined in section 3(F)(2) (Information for New Feedstocks). \64\ The transesterification process that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil feedstock is described in section 2.4.7.3 (Biodiesel) of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA-420-R-10-006). The hydrotreating process that EPA evaluated for the March 2013 rule for biofuel derived from camelina oil feedstock is described in section II.A.3.b of the March 2013 rule (78 FR 14190). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Summary EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil as a feedstock for biofuel production. EPA will consider public comments received when evaluating the lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel production pathways described in [[Page 61419]] petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that use jatropha oil as a feedstock. Dated: September 30, 2015. Christopher Grundler, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 2015-26039 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![61406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. requirements, interventions, protests, consider to be Confidential Business
Docket Numbers: ER16–16–000. service, and qualifying facilities filings Information (CBI) or other information
Applicants: Midcontinent can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Independent System Operator, Inc., docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
MidAmerican Energy Company. other information, call (866) 208–3676 etc.) must be accompanied by a written
Description: Section 205(d) Rate (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. comment. The written comment is
Filing: 2015–10–05_MidAmerican ADIT Dated: October 5, 2015. considered the official comment and
Filing to be effective 1/1/2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., should include discussion of all points
Filed Date: 10/5/15. Deputy Secretary. you wish to make. The EPA will
Accession Number: 20151005–5137. generally not consider comments or
[FR Doc. 2015–25912 Filed 10–9–15; 8:45 am]
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. comment contents located outside of the
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
Docket Numbers: ER16–17–000. primary submission (i.e., on the web,
Applicants: Midcontinent cloud, or other file sharing system). For
Independent System Operator, Inc., additional submission methods, the full
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EPA public comment policy,
Union Electric Company. AGENCY
Description: Section 205(d) Rate information about CBI or multimedia
Filing: 2015–10–05_SA 2850 ATXI–UEC [EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293; FRL–9935–46– submissions, and general guidance on
Construction Agreement (Maywood) to OAR] making effective comments, please visit
be effective 10/5/2015. http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
Notice of Opportunity To Comment on commenting-epa-dockets.
Filed Date: 10/5/15. an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas
Accession Number: 20151005–5150. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emissions Attributable to Production
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. Christopher Ramig, Office of
and Transport of Jatropha Curcas Oil
Docket Numbers: ER16–18–000. Transportation and Air Quality,
for Use in Biofuel Production
Applicants: Midcontinent Transportation and Climate Division,
Independent System Operator, Inc. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental
Description: Section 205(d) Rate Agency (EPA). Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Filing: 2015–10–05_WMU Attachment ACTION: Notice. Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number:
O Filing to be effective 1/1/2016. (202) 564–1372; fax number: (202) 564–
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 1177; email address: ramig.christopher@
Filed Date: 10/5/15.
Agency (EPA) is inviting comment on epa.gov.
Accession Number: 20151005–5163.
its analysis of the greenhouse gas SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.
emissions attributable to the production
Docket Numbers: ER16–19–000. and transport of Jatropha curcas I. General Information
Applicants: PJM Interconnection, (‘‘jatropha’’) oil feedstock for use in
L.L.C. A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
making biofuels such as biodiesel, information to EPA through
Description: Section 205(d) Rate renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha and
Filing: Second Revised Interconnection www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
liquefied petroleum gas. This notice mark the part or all of the information
Service Agreement No. 3402, Queue No. explains EPA’s analysis of the
Y2–105 to be effective 9/4/2015. that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
production and transport components of information in a disk or CD ROM that
Filed Date: 10/5/15. the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
Accession Number: 20151005–5251. you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
of biofuel made from jatropha oil, and disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. describes how EPA may apply this identify electronically within the disk or
Docket Numbers: ER16–20–000. analysis in the future to determine CD ROM the specific information that is
Applicants: PJM Interconnection, whether such biofuels meet the claimed as CBI. In addition to one
L.L.C. necessary greenhouse gas reductions complete version of the comment that
Description: Section 205(d) Rate required for qualification as renewable includes information claimed as CBI, a
Filing: Original Service Agreement No. fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard copy of the comment that does not
4267; Queue Z1–091 (WMPA) to be program. Based on this analysis, we contain the information claimed as CBI
effective 9/21/2015. anticipate that biofuels produced from must be submitted for inclusion in the
Filed Date: 10/5/15. jatropha oil could qualify as biomass- public docket. Information so marked
Accession Number: 20151005–5257. based diesel or advanced biofuel if will not be disclosed except in
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. typical fuel production process accordance with procedures set forth in
The filings are accessible in the technologies or process technologies 40 CFR part 2.
Commission’s eLibrary system by with the same or lower GHG emissions B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
clicking on the links or querying the are used. When submitting comments, remember
docket number. DATES: Comments must be received on to:
Any person desiring to intervene or or before October 13, 2015. • Identify the rulemaking by docket
protest in any of the above proceedings ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, number and other identifying
must file in accordance with Rules 211 identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– information (subject heading, Federal
and 214 of the Commission’s OAR–2015–0293 to the Federal Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and eRulemaking Portal: http://
385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern www.regulations.gov. Follow the online ask you to respond to specific questions
time on the specified comment date. instructions for submitting comments. or organize comments by referencing a
Protests may be considered, but Once submitted, comments cannot be Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
intervention is necessary to become a edited or withdrawn. The EPA may or section number.
party to the proceeding. publish any comment received to its • Explain why you agree or disagree;
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed public docket. Do not submit suggest alternatives and substitute
information relating to filing electronically any information you language for your requested changes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_61603/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61411
detail in a technical memorandum to data available on the inputs and energy some of the husks from the jatropha
the docket.30 requirements for the preparation and fruits are used for fertilizer. In addition,
Seed and Oil Yields. For the purposes planting stages of jatropha, the values the seedcake produced after pressing oil
of this analysis, we project that in 2022, provided in the GCEH petition were from the seeds can be used as an organic
on average, one hectare of jatropha in within the range of other values that we fertilizer. We assumed that fertilizer
southern Mexico will yield five tonnes found through literature review.35 inputs would have to at least make up
of dry jatropha seeds per year, while one We assumed that jatropha has a 20 for nutrients lost from harvesting the
hectare in Brazil will yield four tonnes year crop cycle, meaning that every 20 jatropha fruits.37 Using literature values
per hectare. For Mexico, five tonnes per years the existing jatropha plants are for nitrogen, phosphorous and
hectare reflects a middle to upper bound removed and the crop is replanted.36 potassium in jatropha fruits, husks, and
estimate of recorded yields in the Therefore, the GHG emissions seedcake,38 and our projected seed
literature, and is also supported by associated with preparation and yield, we determined that the jatropha
information provided in the GCEH planting occur every 20 years. husks and seedcake have nearly enough
petition for current yields. We view five Annualized emissions from preparation nutrients to replace the nutrients lost
tonnes per hectare as a conservative and planting are shown in Table III–1. from harvesting the seed fruit. We
estimate of yields in the year 2022 We estimate total GHG emissions from assume that growers will apply 9.3
because intensive jatropha cultivation is jatropha preparation and planting of kilograms per hectare of additional
relatively new, with significant room for 66.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide- inorganic fertilizer to replace the lost
potential advances through genetics, equivalent emissions (kgCO2e) per ton nutrients from harvesting, which is
breeding and improved agronomic of jatropha oil that has been harvested, within the range of literature values and
practices. There are fewer recorded extracted, pre-treated to lower acidity similar to the data provided by GCEH.
observed yields in northeastern Brazil; and delivered to a biofuel producer We also assumed use of small amounts
however, based on evidence from our (‘‘delivered jatropha oil’’). of pesticide, herbicide and insecticide
literature review of environmental and based on information from the peer
climate characteristics, we expect TABLE III–1—ANNUALIZED GHG EMIS- reviewed literature.39 The GHG
jatropha yield in this region will be SIONS FROM PREPARATION AND emissions associated with fertilizer and
somewhat lower than yields in southern PLANTING pesticide use were estimated using the
Mexico.31 Given the potential for methodology developed for the March
[kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil] 2010 RFS rule.40 Table III–2 shows the
scientific breakthroughs to produce
yield improvements for jatropha, we GHG emissions from annual fertilizer
Inputs
also consider this a conservative per GHG and pesticide use, not including nitrous
projection for 2022 yields in Brazil. emissions oxide emissions that occur after they are
hectare
Based on the information discussed in applied to the field (which is discussed
Section III–E below, we assume that Nitrogen fertilizer ... 0.07 kg .. 0.01 separately, below).
after crushing, pre-treatment and Phosphorus fer- 0.02 kg .. 0.001 Annual Energy Use. In addition to
transport, each tonne of dry jatropha tilizer. chemical inputs, energy will be used
Potassium fertilizer 0.09 kg .. 0.003 annually for irrigation, and to power
seeds yields 0.26 tonnes of jatropha oil
Herbicide ............... 1.2 gal ... 1.8 equipment used for field maintenance
delivered to a biofuel production Lime ...................... 1.1 21.3
facility. (This figure is used to convert tonnes.
and harvesting. For the annual diesel,
cultivation and harvesting GHG Diesel .................... 79.3 gal 43.5 gasoline and electricity inputs, we used
emissions from kgCO2e per hectare of values provided in the GCEH petition,
jatropha production to kgCO2e per tonne Total ........... 66.6 which are within the range of values
of delivered oil.) Annualized EPA found through literature review.41
Preparation and Planting. When Emissions.
jatropha is first planted, chemical and TABLE III–2 GHG EMISSIONS FROM
energy inputs are required. For our Annual Inputs and Harvesting. After ANNUAL INPUTS AND HARVESTING
analysis, we used average inputs of the jatropha fields are prepared and
[kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil]
nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, planted, there are annual GHG
herbicide, and diesel use from data in emissions associated with applying crop Inputs GHG
the GCEH petition, as shown in Table inputs and harvesting the jatropha (per ha) emissions
III–1.32 In Brazil, lime is also added as seeds. To estimate the average annual
emissions from these activities we Nitrogen fertilizer ... 9.3 kg .... 27.8
a soil amendment during preparation Phosphorus fer- 9.3 kg .... 9.5
and planting, 33 although it is not assumed an average twenty year
replanting cycle, meaning that in any tilizer.
required in many parts of southern Potassium fertilizer 9.3 kg .... 6.3
Mexico.34 While there is relatively little given year five percent of the jatropha Herbicide ............... 0.5 kg .... 11.5
fields will be in the replanting stage,
30 For more details see ‘‘Jatropha Supporting Data and therefore have zero emissions 37 Bailis and Baka 2010 used the same approach
and Assumptions’’ in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– associated with annual crop inputs and to estimate fertilizer requirements.
0293. harvesting. Table III–2 summarizes the 38 Bailis, R. E. and J. E. Baka. 2010. Greenhouse
31 See for example Trabucco et al. 2010.
emissions from these activities. gas emissions and land use change from Jatropha
32 Table III–1 shows the average results for a
Annual Fertilizer and Pesticide curcas-based jet fuel in Brazil. Environmental
scenario with equal amounts of jatropha output (by Science and Technology, 44(22) 8684–8691.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
mass) in Mexico and Brazil. Inputs. The GCEH petition states that 39 Bailis, R. E. and J. E. Baka. 2010. Greenhouse
33 Bailis, R. E. and J. E. Baka. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions and land use change from Jatropha
gas emissions and land use change from Jatropha 35 We consider the crop input data used in our curcas-based jet fuel in Brazil. Environmental
curcas-based jet fuel in Brazil. Environmental assessment to be conservative because they result Science and Technology, 44(22) 8684–8691.
Science and Technology, 44(22) 8684–8691. in greater estimate GHG emissions per tonne of oil 40 See Section 2.4.3.1 of the Regulatory Impact
34 Lime is required in Brazil because the soils produced than most of the other data we reviewed. Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule.
there are highly acidic, but it is not required in 36 For more details see ‘‘Jatropha Supporting Data 41 Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil
southern Mexico where the native soil pH is well- and Assumptions’’ in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– Production and Transport GHG Emissions, Air and
suited for jatropha. 0293. Radiation Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_61603/page/6.svg)
![61412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices
TABLE III–2 GHG EMISSIONS FROM Table III–4 provides a summary of the indirect emissions) of growing jatropha
ANNUAL INPUTS AND HARVESTING— average GHG emissions attributable to on land that would otherwise be used
Continued growing and harvesting jatropha in for crops or pasture.
southern Mexico and northeastern Jatropha on Currently Unused
[kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil] Grassland Scenario. Analyzing the land
Brazil. Each of the emissions categories
listed in the table are explained above use change emissions associated with
Inputs GHG
(per ha) emissions in this section. growing jatropha on grassland that is
not currently being used for agricultural
Fungicide- 0.02 L .... 0.01 TABLE III–4 GHG EMISSIONS ATTRIB- purposes requires estimates of the
Bacteriocide. UTABLE TO GROWING AND HAR- carbon sequestered by the jatropha
Pesticide ............... 0.06 L .... 0.7 VESTING JATROPHA plantations, as compared to the
Diesel .................... 15.6 gal 162.5 grasslands they would replace. We
Gasoline ................ 1.6 gal ... 14.8 [kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil]
estimated the average amount of
Electricity ............... 184 kWh 40.9 biomass carbon sequestered by jatropha
Total ............... ............... 274.0 GHG
Emissions Category plantations in southern Mexico and
emissions
northeastern Brazil, projected out to
Annual Nitrous-Oxide Emissions. Preparation and Planting .......... 67 2022. Jatropha biomass carbon stocks
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted from Annual Inputs and Harvesting .. 274 were estimated using available scientific
nitrogen fertilizer and from parts of the Nitrous Oxide Emissions .......... 709 information from the literature.
jatropha plant that are left on the field Total ................................... 1,050 Reinhardt et al. measured basic data
to decay or applied as fertilizer about jatropha plants, such as root to
(‘‘jatropha residues’’). The jatropha D. Land Use Change and Agricultural shoot ratios and biomass carbon
residues can be divided into three Sector Emissions content. Bailis and Baka used the data
categories: (1) Husks that are applied to As explained in Section III–B, above, from Reinhardt et al. to estimate
the field as fertilizer, (2) seedcake that we believe that southern Mexico and biomass carbon stocks for different
is applied to the field as fertilizer, and northeastern Brazil are the most likely jatropha yield scenarios. Using our
(3) above and below ground biomass locations for commercial-scale projected jatropha yields of 5 and 4
from the jatropha plant (e.g., the trunk, production of jatropha for use in making tonnes per hectare per year for Mexico
branches, leaves, and roots). The above biofuels for the RFS program. According and Brazil respectively (the basis for
and below ground biomass from the to the GCEH petition, there are large these projections is discussed above),
jatropha plant becomes a plant residue areas of grasslands in southern Mexico we used the Bailis and Baka approach
every 20 years, when the old plants are that are suitable areas for jatropha to estimate average biomass carbon
removed and new plants are planted. production. These areas were used for stocks of 8.9 and 8.1 tonnes per hectare
For each of these categories of jatropha crop production or pasture, but they are for ten year old jatropha plantations in
residues, we used equations and factors now fallow or used for very low Mexico and Brazil, respectively. Per the
from the United Nations intensity grazing. For example, Skutsch methodology developed for the March
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate et al. evaluated jatropha land use change 2010 RFS rule, we translated these
Change (IPCC) to calculate direct and impacts in Yucatan, Mexico and found estimates into average biomass carbon
indirect N2O emissions, and we two plantations that had been planted stocks over 30 years. Assuming linear
annualized them by dividing by 20.42 on estates that had previously been used growth rates, a 20 year replanting cycle
Estimated annual emissions from for low-intensity grazing.43 There are and pruning of any growth after 10 years
fertilizer and plant residues are shown also grasslands in northeastern Brazil to ensure fruit accessibility, we
in Table III–3. that are suitable for jatropha production, estimated average jatropha plantation
although much of this land may biomass carbon stocks over 30 years to
TABLE III–3—N2O EMISSIONS FROM currently be in use as pasture. For be 6.9 and 6.3 tonnes per hectare for
FERTILIZER AND JATROPHA RESIDUES example, Bailis and Baka surveyed Mexico and Brazil respectively.45 These
jatropha producers in northeastern values are within the range of estimates
[kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil]
Brazil and found that the producers they in the literature for jatropha plantations
approached had primarily planted their in these regions.46
GHG
emissions jatropha on pasture land.44 For comparison, based on our analysis
Based on this information, the first for the March 2010 RFS rule we
Fertilizer, direct ......................... 37.4 scenario we evaluated for land use estimate that grasslands in Mexico and
Fertilizer, indirect ...................... 12.2 change emissions considers jatropha Brazil contain approximately 4.1 and
Husks, direct ............................. 51.5 production on grasslands that would 10.9 tonnes of carbon per hectare,
Husks, indirect .......................... 11.6 otherwise not be used for crops or respectively. For our first scenario, we
Seedcake, direct ....................... 281.7 pasture. In a second scenario, we used looked at the land use change and
Seedcake, indirect .................... 63.4 economic modeling to look at the
agricultural sector emissions associated
Above and below ground bio- potential land use change and
mass, direct ........................... 204.7 agricultural sector emissions (including with growing jatropha on grassland in
Above and below ground bio- Mexico and Brazil that would not
mass, indirect ........................ 46.0 otherwise be used for crop production
43 Skutsch, M., E. de los Rios, S. Solis, E.
Total ................................... 709.4 or pasture. Comparing the carbon stocks
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Riegelhaupt, D. Hinojosa, S. Gerfert, Y. Gao, and O.
Masera. 2011. ‘‘Jatropha in Mexico: Environmental
45 For details on this calculation see ‘‘Jatropha Oil
and Social Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel
42 Directemissions are emitted from the jatropha Program.’’ Ecology and Society 16(4):11. Production and Transport GHG Calculations’’
plantation, whereas indirect emissions occur for doi:10.5751/ES–04448–160411. spreadsheet on Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293.
material that has moved to another location (e.g., 44 Bailis, R.E. and J.E. Baka. 2010. ‘‘Greenhouse 46 For a comparison with other values in the
through leaching or runoff) before it produces N2O Gas Emissions and Land Use Change from Jatropha literature see Supporting Documentation for
or a pre-cursor of N2O. For crop residues, such as Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil.’’ Environmental Jatropha Oil Production and Transport GHG
above and below ground biomass, direct emissions Science & Technology 44(22):8684–8691. Emissions, Air and Radiation Docket EPA–HQ–
occur when the plant material decays. doi:10.1021/es1019178. OAR–2015–0293.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_61603/page/7.svg)
![61414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices
displace the higher value specialty the northeastern part of the country, the other involving production in both
crops, so we focused our analysis on the which correlates with the Northeast Brazil and Mexico. In both cases, the
land used for commodity crops: corn, Coast and North-Northeast Cerrados land use impacts in Mexico are the
grain sorghum, soybeans and wheat. We regions in the FAPRI–CARD Brazil replacement of other crops (primarily
then specified in the FAPRI–CARD module. Unlike the Mexico part of the corn) with jatropha. In the Brazil and
model that jatropha will displace these FAPRI–CARD model, the Brazil module Mexico case, jatropha is planted on
staple crops based on their current share includes crop and pasture land, and roughly three-quarters pasture and one-
of land used for commodity crops: 96 allows for switching between the two. quarter crop land in Brazil. In both
percent corn, two percent grain Instead of specifying how much of each cases, the rest of the world (outside of
sorghum, and one percent each of type of crop and pasture to displace Mexico and Brazil) increases its crop
soybeans and wheat. with jatropha, we specified the area area. However, globally the total area
For Brazil we used a slightly different needed for jatropha production and devoted to non-jatropha crops and
approach to take advantage of the fact allowed the FAPRI–CARD model to pasture decreases. Overall, the rest of
that the FAPRI–CARD model for Brazil project the land used for jatropha the world expands their agricultural
is significantly more detailed than the production. land (the sum of crop and pasture land
Mexico module. As explained above, Table III–5 summarizes the land use including jatropha), meaning that other
based on EPA’s literature review we changes projected in our modeling. We types of land, including unmanaged
determined that jatropha production in evaluated two cases: one involving grassland and forest, are converted for
Brazil would predominantly occur in jatropha production only in Mexico, and agricultural uses.
TABLE III–5—PROJECTED LAND USE CHANGES BY CASE IN 2022
[Thousand hectares] 50
Crop Land
Pasture
Jatropha Other Crops All Crops
Mexico Only Case
Mexico .......................................................................................................... 345 (345) 0 0
Brazil ............................................................................................................ 0 9 9 (5)
Rest of World ............................................................................................... 0 114 114 (63)
Total ...................................................................................................... 345 (222) 123 (68)
Brazil and Mexico Case
Mexico .......................................................................................................... 172 (172) 0 0
Brazil ............................................................................................................ 216 (62) 154 (154)
Rest of World ............................................................................................... 0 81 81 (49)
Total ...................................................................................................... 388 (153) 235 (203)
Table III–6 summarizes the projected reduction in the total area of corn but States. In both cases, there is a reduction
changes in the production of corn, an increase in the amount of corn in the area and production of soybeans
soybeans and sugarcane, the crops with produced. This is the result of corn and sugarcane. All of these changes are
the largest changes in the cases we production shifting to regions with less than 0.1% of projected crop
simulated. In both cases, there is a higher yields, particularly the United production in 2022.
TABLE III–6—PROJECTED CROP PRODUCTION CHANGES BY CASE IN 2022
[Thousand metric tonnes]
Corn Soybeans Sugarcane
Mexico Only Case
Mexico .................................................................................................................................... (1,151) (9) 0
Brazil ...................................................................................................................................... 292 103 (51)
United States ......................................................................................................................... 738 (97) 5
China ...................................................................................................................................... 115 (1) (7)
Rest of World ......................................................................................................................... 185 (8) (4)
Total ................................................................................................................................ 178 (12) (58)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Mexico and Brazil Case
Mexico .................................................................................................................................... (578) (4) 0
Brazil ...................................................................................................................................... 110 22 (300)
United States ......................................................................................................................... 375 (37) 2
50 For the tables in this Notice, the numbers in
parentheses are negative and the totals may not sum
due to rounding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_61603/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61415
TABLE III–6—PROJECTED CROP PRODUCTION CHANGES BY CASE IN 2022—Continued
[Thousand metric tonnes]
Corn Soybeans Sugarcane
China ...................................................................................................................................... 62 1 (2)
Rest of World ......................................................................................................................... 101 1 54
Total ................................................................................................................................ 70 (18) (246)
Table III–7 summarizes the projected projections we used the satellite data to average biomass carbon stocks of five
impacts on global meat production. In determine what types of land have been tonnes per hectare.53 In our assessment
both of the cases, meat production converted to crops and pasture in each average jatropha plantation biomass
declines. These changes are on the order region, and then applied those land use carbon stocks are 6.9 tonnes per hectare,
of approximately 0.01%, or less, of change patterns to the agricultural so every hectare of corn replaced by
projected global livestock production in changes projected by the FAPRI–CARD jatropha increases biomass carbon by
2022. modeling. Land use change GHG 1.9 tonnes (including both above- and
emissions were then estimated over 30 below-ground biomass). Additionally,
TABLE III–7—CHANGES IN GLOBAL years using emission factors derived converting corn to jatropha results in
MEAT PRODUCTION BY CASE IN 2022 from various data sources accounting for additional soil carbon sequestration.
[thousand metric tonnes] average carbon stocks on eight types of Due to the reduced tillage and increased
land in 755 distinct regions.52 biomass returned to the soil for jatropha
Mexico Brazil and The land use change GHG emissions
only case Mexico Case are summarized in Table III–8,
(tree litter and prunings) compared to
corn, we estimate that after 20 years
including results for both the Mexico
Beef .................. (0.4) (4.1) only and Mexico and Brazil cases. The jatropha would add approximately 27.7
Pork .................. (9.4) (5.7)
results are broken out regionally by tonnes of soil carbon per hectare
Poultry ............... (10.0) (5.8) compared to corn production in
Mexico, Brazil, and Rest of World,
because as discussed above, the great Mexico.54 Therefore, annualized over
Overall, the projected agricultural thirty years we estimate that replacing
sector impacts in 2022 of growing majority of land use change impacts
came from Mexico and Brazil. Table III– corn with jatropha in Mexico would
jatropha on agricultural land in Mexico
result in additional soil sequestration of
and Brazil in the two cases we evaluated 8 also includes the total emissions for
can be summarized as a reduction in the low and high ends of the 95% approximately 1.0 tonnes of carbon per
crop and pasture land in Mexico and confidence range for land use change hectare.
Brazil which triggers an increase in crop GHG emissions, based on the land use In both cases, we project positive land
area in other countries. Just over half of change uncertainty analysis use change emissions in Brazil and
the increase in crop area in other methodology developed for the March other countries. We project land use
countries comes at the expense of 2010 RFS rule, which considers the change emissions in Brazil for a number
pasture land, with the rest coming from uncertainty in the satellite data and land of reasons. In the Mexico only case,
other types of land, including use change emissions factors used in Brazil expands its crop production to
unmanaged grassland and forest. our assessment. backfill for some of the lost production
Globally, corn production increases, in Mexico. Some of this crop expansion
while soybean, sugarcane and meat TABLE III–8—LAND USE CHANGE
occurs on pasture, which results in net
production declines. Detailed modeling GHG EMISSIONS BY CASE IN 2022 land use change emissions from both
results and further explanation are [kgCO2e per tonne delivered jatropha oil] biomass and soil carbon, and some of
provided in the docket for this notice,51 the crop expansion occurs on other
and we welcome comments on all Mexico Brazil and
] types of land, including forests. In
aspects of our analysis. Only case Mexico Case
particular, the FAPRI–CARD model
To estimate the GHG emissions
associated with the land use changes
Mexico .......... (2,795) (1,397) projects crop and pasture expansion in
Brazil ............. 843 636 the Amazon, an area with particularly
summarized in Table III–5, EPA used Rest of World 569 356
the same methodology as developed for high carbon stocks, resulting in large
Total (Mean) (1,383) (406)
the March 2010 RFS rule. Per this Total (Low) .... (3,725) (1,827)
emissions per hectare of conversion. In
methodology, the crop and pasture area Total (High) ... 612 809 the Brazil and Mexico case, the
changes in 2022 derived from the expansion of jatropha onto corn or
FAPRI–CARD model were evaluated In both cases, the mean values suggest soybean land results in a net
with Moderate Resolution Imaging negative land use change emissions (net sequestration, but this net sequestration
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite sequestration) associated with growing is smaller than the emissions associated
data to project what types of land (e.g., jatropha on agricultural land. This is with replacing sugarcane and pasture
grassland, savanna, forest) would be due primarily to the net sequestration with jatropha.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
converted to agricultural land (crops that we project from replacing corn
and pasture) in regions where the fields with jatropha plantations in
FAPRI–CARD model projected Mexico. Per our analysis for the March 53 See Section 2.4 of the Regulatory Impact
agricultural expansion. For these 2010 RFS rule, corn in Mexico has Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule, http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
51 Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil 52 See Section 2.4 of the Regulatory Impact
54 Based on the methodology developed for the
Production and Transport GHG Emissions, Air and Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule, http:// March 2010 RFS rule, the soil carbon stocks reach
Radiation Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
equilibrium after 20 years.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_61603/page/10.svg)
![61416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices
In both cases, we also project land use international crop input data and corn production in Mexico. Indirect
change emissions from the rest of the emission factors developed and peer livestock emissions are negative,
world (all regions other than Mexico reviewed for the March 2010 RFS rule. because as shown in Table III–7, we
and Brazil). In our modeling the main The livestock emissions factors are from project reductions in meat production in
impact in other countries is increased the IPCC. the cases evaluated.
crop production to respond to higher In the first main scenario we
prices and to backfill for some of the evaluated, where jatropha production TABLE III–9—INDIRECT CROP PRO-
lost production from Mexico and Brazil. occurs on grassland that is not DUCTION AND LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS
The additional cropland replaces some otherwise used for crop production or BY CASE IN 2022
pasture and some other types of land, grazing, there are no indirect emissions
[kgCO2e per tonne delivered jatropha oil]
including unmanaged grasslands and associated with changes in fertilizer,
forests, which results in net land use pesticide and energy use for crop
Mexico Mexico and
change emissions. production, and methane and nitrous only case Brazil case
For this second scenario, our analysis oxide emissions associated with
also considers indirect emissions changes in crop production. In the Indirect Crop
associated with changes in fertilizer, second scenario, where jatropha is Production ..... (431) (338)
pesticide and energy use for crop grown on agricultural land, there are Indirect Live-
production, and methane and nitrous indirect emissions associated with how stock .............. (125) (392)
oxide emissions associated with the agricultural sector responds to the
changes in crop production. The sources displacement of crop and grazing land Table III–10 summarizes the land use
of indirect livestock emissions include for jatropha. Table III–9 summarizes the change, and agricultural sector
emissions from energy use for livestock indirect crop production and livestock emissions in the two main scenarios
production, and methane and nitrous emissions impacts for both of the cases that we evaluated. Note that this table
oxide emissions associated with raising we evaluated for scenario two. Indirect does not include the emissions
cattle, dairy cows, swine and poultry. agricultural emissions are negative in associated with cultivation and
The emissions for indirect crop both cases, primarily because of harvesting discussed above in Section
production were estimated based on emission reductions from decreased III–C.
TABLE III–10—LAND USE CHANGE AND INDIRECT AGRICULTURAL SECTOR EMISSIONS BY SCENARIO IN 2022
[kgCO2e per tonne delivered jatropha oil]
Scenario Jatropha
Jatropha produced produced on
on unused agricultural land
grassland in
Case Mexico in Brazil Mexico only Mexico and Brazil
Land Use Change .................................................................................................... 141 (1,383) (406)
Indirect Crop Production .......................................................................................... .................................. (431) (338)
Indirect Livestock ..................................................................................................... .................................. (125) (392)
Total .................................................................................................................. 141 (1,940) (1,136)
E. Feedstock Transport and Processing and only economical at very large scales the jatropha oil.57 Based on data
of production. According to Bailis and provided in the GCEH petition, we
Producing fuels from jatropha Baka, all jatropha oil produced in Brazil evaluated the emissions from jatropha
requires oil to be first extracted from its is extracted by screw press at one oil pretreatment with chemicals
seeds, and then refined into a finished facility. Based on our review of (typically sodium hydroxide) to lower
fuel product. Oil can either be expelled available literature, EPA’s evaluation its acid content, and electricity used to
from the seeds by mechanical treatment heat the reaction.58 The outputs from
considered oil recovery from jatropha
or extracted using chemical solvents. the pre-treatment process are pre-treated
seeds to occur via screw press
There are two commonly used types of jatropha oil, soapstock and filter cake.
mechanical expulsion assuming oil
mechanical expellers, the screw press The pre-treated jatropha oil is ready for
and the ram press. The screw press is yield of 75% and seed oil content of
35%.55 Based on reported electricity transport and use as a biodiesel
typically used, and is somewhat more feedstock. The soapstock and filter cake
efficient at expelling oil (75–80% yield) and fuel demands for jatropha oil
extraction, we estimate that oil are low value byproducts, and as a
than the ram press (60–65% yield). Up conservative approach we model them
to three passes is common to achieve extraction results in emissions of 175
as resulting in no GHG emissions
these yields. Certain pretreatments of kgCO2e per ton of delivered jatropha
impacts, i.e., we do not give a
jatropha seeds, such as cooking, can oil.56
displacement credit for these
increase the expelled oil yield to 89% Our evaluation also considers byproducts. We estimate the GHG
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
after a single pass using a screw press emissions associated with pretreating
and 91% after a second pass. Chemical 57 Other vegetable oils that EPA has approved as
extraction can achieve greater oil yields 55 See feedstocks, including soybean oil, commonly
‘‘GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil
than mechanical expulsion. (The most Production: Literature Review and Synthesis’’ on
undergo similar pre-treatment before they are
commonly used chemical extraction converted to biofuels. The oil recovered after
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. pretreatment is still chemically jatropha oil.
method, the n-hexane method, can 56 For details on this calculation see the ‘‘Jatropha 58 The pre-treatment data provided in the GCEH
achieve yields of 99%). However, Lifecycle GHG Calculations’’ spreadsheet on Docket petition is within the range of values EPA found in
chemical extraction is capital intensive EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. the literature.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_61603/page/11.svg)
![61418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices
TABLE III–11—PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT GHG EMISSIONS FOR JATROPHA OIL
[kgCO2e per tonne of delivered oil] 62
Jatropha oil
Produced on
Emissions category Produced on agricultural land Soybean oil
Unused grassland
in Mexico
and Brazil Mexico Only Mexico and Brazil
Land Use Change .................................................................. 141 (1,383) (406) 1,158
Preparation and Planting ....................................................... 67 40 67 (3)
Annual Cultivation .................................................................. 983 964 983
Indirect Crop Production ........................................................ .................................. (431) (338)
Indirect Livestock ................................................................... .................................. (125) (392) (291)
Oil Extraction ......................................................................... 175 175 175 470
Oil Pre-Treatment .................................................................. 5 5 5
Seed Transport ...................................................................... 24 24 24 91
Oil Transport .......................................................................... 10 10 10
Total ................................................................................ 1,404 (721) 128 1,425
Low ........................................................................................ 1,217 (3,063) (1,293) 470
High ........................................................................................ 1,590 1,273 1,342 2,580
Based on the results summarized in H. Fuel Production and Distribution 80.1416(b)(2).63 Based on our evaluation
Table III–11, we believe it is reasonable, of the lifecycle GHG emissions
as a conservative approach (and subject Jatropha oil is suitable for the same attributable to the production and
to confirmation upon review of conversion processes as soybean oil and transport of jatropha oil feedstock, EPA
individual petition submissions), to other previously approved feedstocks anticipates that fuel produced from
apply the GHG emissions estimates we for making biodiesel, renewable diesel, jatropha oil feedstock through the same
established in the March 2010 rule for jet fuel, naphtha and liquefied transesterification or hydrotreating
the production and transport of soybean petroleum gas. In addition, the fuel process technologies that EPA evaluated
oil to jatropha oil when evaluating yield per pound of oil is expected to be for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel
similar for fuel produced from jatropha derived from soybean oil and the March
future facility-specific petitions from
oil and soybean oil through these 2013 RFS rule for biofuel derived from
biofuel producers seeking to generate
processes. Jatropha may also be suitable camelina oil would qualify for biomass-
RINs for volumes of biofuel produced based diesel (D-code 4) RINs or
for other conversion processes and types
from jatropha oil. While it is possible advanced biofuel (D-code 5) RINs.64
of fuel that EPA has not previously
that jatropha could be grown on other However, EPA will evaluate petitions
evaluated. After reviewing comments
types of land, such as shrubland or for fuel produced from jatropha oil
received in response to this action, we
secondary forest, that would result in feedstock on a case-by-case basis.
will combine our evaluation of
higher GHG emissions than the
agricultural sector GHG emissions IV. Summary
scenarios we evaluated, the RFS
associated with the use of jatropha oil EPA invites public comment on its
program’s qualification requirements for
feedstock with our evaluation of the analysis of GHG emissions associated
renewable biomass would prevent the
GHG emissions associated with with the production and transport of
use of jatropha grown on such lands
individual producers’ production jatropha oil as a feedstock for biofuel
from use as an RFS renewable fuel
processes and finished fuels to production. EPA will consider public
feedstock. The renewable biomass
determine whether any proposed comments received when evaluating the
definition would not prevent a scenario
pathway satisfies CAA lifecycle GHG lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel
where jatropha is planted on emissions reduction requirements for
agricultural land, and the displaced production pathways described in
RFS-qualifying renewable fuels. Each
crops or pasturage is then shifted to biofuel producer seeking to generate 63 For information on how to submit a petition for
shrubland or forestland. However, as RINs for non-grandfathered volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil see EPA’s Web
discussed above, our modeling suggests biofuel produced from jatropha oil will page titled ‘‘How to Submit a Complete Petition’’
that this scenario is not expected. (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/
first need to submit a petition requesting new-pathways/how-to-submit.htm) including the
Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to EPA’s evaluation of their new renewable document on that Web page titled ‘‘How to Prepare
conclude that the overall emissions fuel pathway pursuant to 40 CFR a Complete Petition.’’ Petitions for biofuel produced
attributable to the production and from jatropha oil should include all of the
80.1416 of the RFS regulations, and applicable information outlined in Section 3 of the
transportation of jatropha oil used to include all of the information specified ‘‘How to Prepare a Complete Petition’’ document,
produce biofuels for the RFS program at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(1). Because EPA is but they do not need to provide the information
will be equal to or less than the same outlined in section 3(F)(2) (Information for New
evaluating the greenhouse gas emissions Feedstocks).
types of emissions attributable to associated with the production and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
64 The transesterification process that EPA
soybean oil. We welcome public transport of jatropha oil feedstock evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel
comments on all aspects of our through this action and comment derived from soybean oil feedstock is described in
assessment. section 2.4.7.3 (Biodiesel) of the Regulatory Impact
process, petitions requesting EPA’s Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA–420–
evaluation of biofuel pathways R–10–006). The hydrotreating process that EPA
62 Totals may not sum due to rounding. The evaluated for the March 2013 rule for biofuel
involving jatropha oil feedstock will not
‘‘Total’’ results represents our mean estimates, and derived from camelina oil feedstock is described in
the ‘‘Low’’ and ‘‘High’’ results represent the low
have to include the information for new section II.A.3.b of the March 2013 rule (78 FR
and high ends of the 95 percent confidence range. feedstocks specified at 40 CFR 14190).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_61603/page/13.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61419
petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: waterborne microbial contamination;
80.1416 that use jatropha oil as a Tracy Bone, OW, 4305T, Environmental notify the public of pollution
feedstock. Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania occurrences, and post beach advisories
Dated: September 30, 2015. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and closures to prevent public exposure
Christopher Grundler,
telephone number: 202–564–5257; to microbial pathogens. To qualify for a
email address: bone.tracy@epa.gov. BEACH Act Grant, a state must submit
Director, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: information to EPA documenting that its
Supporting documents which explain beach monitoring and notification
[FR Doc. 2015–26039 Filed 10–9–15; 8:45 am]
in detail the information that the EPA program is consistent with 11
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
will be collecting are available in the performance criteria outlined in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket National Beach Guidance and Required
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION can be viewed online at Performance Criteria for Grants, 2014
AGENCY www.regulations.gov or in person at the Edition.
EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room Form Numbers: None.
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Respondents/affected entities: Entities
[EPA–HQ 20415–0641; FRL –9935–60–OW]
Washington, DC. The telephone number potentially affected by this action are
Proposed Information Collection for the Docket Center is 202–566–1744. environmental and public health
Request; Comment Request; For additional information about EPA’s agencies in coastal and Great Lakes
Information Collection Request for public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/ states, territories, and tribes.
Reporting Requirements for BEACH dockets. Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Act Grants (Renewal) Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Required to obtain the grants as directed
the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments by the Beaches Environmental
AGENCY: Environmental Protection and information to enable it to: (i) Assessment and Coastal Health
Agency (EPA). evaluate whether the proposed (BEACH) Act amendment to the Clean
ACTION: Notice. collection of information is necessary Water Act (CWA).
for the proper performance of the Estimated number of respondents: 38.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection functions of the Agency, including Frequency of response: Submitting
Agency is planning to submit an whether the information will have monitoring and notification reports
information collection request (ICR), practical utility; (ii) evaluate the quarterly, all other reporting annual.
‘‘Information collection request for accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the Total estimated burden: 92,391 hours
reporting requirements for BEACH act burden of the proposed collection of (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
grants (renewal)’’ (EPA ICR No. 2048.05, information, including the validity of 1320.03(b)
OMB Control No. 2040–0244) to the the methodology and assumptions used; Total estimated cost: $13,302,102 (per
Office of Management and Budget (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and year), includes $9,731,280 operation &
(OMB) for review and approval in clarity of the information to be maintenance costs. There are no capital
accordance with the Paperwork collected; and (iv) minimize the burden costs.
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). of the collection of information on those Changes in Estimates: There is an
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public who are to respond, including through increase of 3,579 hours in the total
comments on specific aspects of the the use of appropriate automated estimated respondent burden compared
proposed information collection as electronic, mechanical, or other with the ICR currently approved by
described below. This is a proposed technological collection techniques or OMB. This increase is due to an
extension of the ICR, which is currently other forms of information technology, additional respondent qualifying for a
approved through December 31, 2015. e.g., permitting electronic submission of grant and to additional performance
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor responses. EPA will consider the criteria related to public evaluation of
and a person is not required to respond comments received and amend the ICR programs and implementation
to a collection of information unless it as appropriate. The final ICR package schedules, which are discussed in the
displays a currently valid OMB control will then be submitted to OMB for updated grant guidance document,
number. review and approval. At that time, EPA National Beach Guidance and Required
DATES: Comments must be submitted on will issue another Federal Register Performance Criteria for Grants, 2014
or before December 14, 2015. notice to announce the submission of Edition.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to Dated: October 1, 2015.
referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ submit additional comments to OMB. Elizabeth Southerland,
20415–0614 online using Abstract: The Beaches Environmental Director, Office of Science and Technology.
www.regulations.gov (our preferred Assessment and Coastal Health [FR Doc. 2015–26037 Filed 10–9–15; 08:45 am]
method), or by mail to: EPA Docket (BEACH) Act amends the Clean Water
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Center, Environmental Protection Act (CWA) in part and authorizes the
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, (EPA) to award BEACH Act Program
DC 20460. Development and Implementation EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
EPA’s policy is that all comments Grants to coastal and Great Lakes states,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
received will be included in the public tribes, and territories (collectively [Public Notice 2015–3020]
docket without change including any referred to as states) for their beach
personal information provided, unless monitoring and notification programs. Agency Information Collection
the comment includes profanity, threats, The grants will assist those states to Activities: Comment Request
information claimed to be Confidential develop and implement a consistent AGENCY:Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Business Information (CBI) or other approach to monitor recreational water
Submission for OMB review and
ACTION:
information whose disclosure is quality; assess, manage, and
comments request.
restricted by statute. communicate health risks from
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:23 Oct 09, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_61603/page/14.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-27 08:47:46
Document Modified: 2018-02-27 08:47:46
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2015. | |
| Contact | Christopher Ramig, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1372; fax | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 61406 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR