61406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER16–16–000. 

Applicants: Midcontinent 

Independent System Operator, Inc., 

MidAmerican Energy Company. 

Description: Section 205(d) Rate 

Filing: 2015–10–05_MidAmerican ADIT 

Filing to be effective 1/1/2016. 

Filed Date: 10/5/15. 

Accession Number: 20151005–5137. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER16–17–000. 

Applicants: Midcontinent 

Independent System Operator, Inc., 

Union Electric Company. 

Description: Section 205(d) Rate 

Filing: 2015–10–05_SA 2850 ATXI–UEC 

Construction Agreement (Maywood) to 

be effective 10/5/2015. 

Filed Date: 10/5/15. 

Accession Number: 20151005–5150. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER16–18–000. 

Applicants: Midcontinent 

Independent System Operator, Inc. 

Description: Section 205(d) Rate 

Filing: 2015–10–05_WMU Attachment 

O Filing to be effective 1/1/2016. 

Filed Date: 10/5/15. 

Accession Number: 20151005–5163. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER16–19–000. 

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. 

Description: Section 205(d) Rate 

Filing: Second Revised Interconnection 

Service Agreement No. 3402, Queue No. 

Y2–105 to be effective 9/4/2015. 

Filed Date: 10/5/15. 

Accession Number: 20151005–5251. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. 

Docket Numbers: ER16–20–000. 

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. 

Description: Section 205(d) Rate 

Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 

4267; Queue Z1–091 (WMPA) to be 

effective 9/21/2015. 

Filed Date: 10/5/15. 

Accession Number: 20151005–5257. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15. 

The filings are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the links or querying the 

docket number. 

Any person desiring to intervene or 

protest in any of the above proceedings 

must file in accordance with Rules 211 

and 214 of the Commission’s 

Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 

385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

time on the specified comment date. 

Protests may be considered, but 

intervention is necessary to become a 

party to the proceeding. 

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 

information relating to filing 

requirements, interventions, protests, 

service, and qualifying facilities filings 

can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/

docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For 

other information, call (866) 208–3676 

(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. 

Dated: October 5, 2015. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–25912 Filed 10–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

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 biomassbased 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: ramig.christopher@

epa.gov. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61407 

1See 75 FR 14670. 

2There 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. 

• 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. 

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 coproducts 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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 

3These 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. 

4Specifically the regions of Brazil that 

encompasses the following provinces: Alagoas, 

Bahia, Ceara, Maranhao, Paraiba, Pernambuco, 

Piaui, Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe, Tocantins. 

5Based on our assessment of land use change 

emissions factors for previous RFS rules, on average 

grasslands in Mexico sequester approximately 15 

tonnes CO2e per hectare compared to 40 tonnes 

CO2e per hectare in northeastern Brazil. 

6For 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 

7The 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. 

distribution when evaluating facilityspecific petitions from biofuel 

producers seeking to generate renewable 

identification numbers (RINs) for nongrandfathered 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 biomassbased diesel and advanced biofuel.3

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 dioxideequivalent emissions (kgCO2e) 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 kgCO2e 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 

kgCO2e 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 

kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha 

oil, which is lower than the emissions 

attributable to delivered soybean oil. 

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 kgCO2e 

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 kgCO2e per tonne of delivered 

jatropha oil, which is also significantly 

less than the emissions per tonne of 

delivered soybean oil. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61409 

8CABI Jatropha Curcas Data Sheet, http://

www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28393 

9 Ibid. 

10See ‘‘GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil 

Production: Literature Review and Synthesis’’ in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. 

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. 

12Telephone conversations with Terry Coffelt 

(USDA–ARS), Terry Isbell (USDA–ARS), Roy Scott 

(USDA–ARS), Dan Parfitt (University of CaliforniaDavis), Wagner Vendrame (University of Florida), 

Jaime Barton (Hawaii Agricultural Research Center), 

Bob Osgood (HARC), Richard Oguchi (University of 

Hawaii), Robert Bailis (Yale). 

13 Ibid. 

14See ‘‘GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil 

Production: Literature Review and Synthesis’’ on 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. 

15For 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. 

16CABI Jatropha Curcas Data Sheet, http://

www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28393 

above. We welcome public comments 

on all aspects of our assessment. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 commercialscale 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. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 

17The Global Exchange for Social Investment 

(GEXSI). 2008. Global Market Study on Jatropha. 

Final report. Available at: http://www.jatrophaalliance.org/fileadmin/documents/GEXSI_GlobalJatropha-Study_FULL–REPORT.pdf. 

18Wahl et al. 2012. Insights into Jatropha Projects 

Worldwide. Leuphana University. 

19See ‘‘GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil 

Production: Literature Review and Synthesis’’ on 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. 

20Skutsch, 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. 

21Bailis, 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. 

22See ‘‘GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil 

Production: Literature Review and Synthesis’’ on 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. 

23Wahl et al. 2012. 

24Letter from Cosmo Biofuels Group, ‘‘Jatropha 

RFS2 Pathway Petition Insights Into Jatropha 

Projects Worldwide.’’ February 7, 2014 

25For 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. 

26USDA–FAS. 2012. India Biofuels Annual. 

Global Agricultural Information Network. GAIN 

Report Number: IN2081. 

27Letter from BEI International, LLC, ‘‘Jatropha 

RFS2 Pathway Petition Insights Into Jatropha 

Projects Worldwide.’’ January 9, 2014. 

28See the definition of renewable biomass at 40 

CFR 80.1401. 

29Conversation with Bruce Babcock, January 8, 

2013. 

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

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. 

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. 

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 facilityspecific 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61411 

30For more details see ‘‘Jatropha Supporting Data 

and Assumptions’’ in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0293. 

31See for example Trabucco et al. 2010. 

32Table III–1 shows the average results for a 

scenario with equal amounts of jatropha output (by 

mass) in Mexico and Brazil. 

33Bailis, 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. 

34Lime 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 wellsuited for jatropha. 

35We 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. 

36For more details see ‘‘Jatropha Supporting Data 

and Assumptions’’ in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0293. 

37Bailis and Baka 2010 used the same approach 

to estimate fertilizer requirements. 

38Bailis, 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. 

39Bailis, 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. 

40See Section 2.4.3.1 of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule. 

41Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil 

Production and Transport GHG Emissions, Air and 

Radiation Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. 

detail in a technical memorandum to 

the docket.30

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. 

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 kgCO2e per hectare of 

jatropha production to kgCO2e 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

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 dioxideequivalent emissions (kgCO2e) per ton 

of jatropha oil that has been harvested, 

extracted, pre-treated to lower acidity 

and delivered to a biofuel producer 

(‘‘delivered jatropha oil’’). 

TABLE III–1—ANNUALIZED GHG EMISSIONS FROM PREPARATION AND

PLANTING

[kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil] 

Inputs 

per 

hectare 

GHG 

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). 

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

TABLE III–2 GHG EMISSIONS FROM

ANNUAL INPUTS AND HARVESTING

[kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil] 

Inputs 

(per ha) 

GHG 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 

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 N2O 

or a pre-cursor of N2O. For crop residues, such as 

above and below ground biomass, direct emissions 

occur when the plant material decays. 

43Skutsch, 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. 44Bailis, 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. 

45For details on this calculation see ‘‘Jatropha Oil 

Production and Transport GHG Calculations’’ 

spreadsheet on Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. 

46For 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. 

TABLE III–2 GHG EMISSIONS FROM

ANNUAL INPUTS AND HARVESTING— 

Continued 

[kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil] 

Inputs 

(per ha) 

GHG 

emissions 

FungicideBacteriocide.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 (N2O) 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 N2O emissions, and we 

annualized them by dividing by 20.42

Estimated annual emissions from 

fertilizer and plant residues are shown 

in Table III–3. 

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] 

Emissions Category GHG 

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

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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61413 

47Based 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 pretreatment. 

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. 

49Mexico Information Service for Agribusiness 

and Fisheries (SIAP), http://www.siap.gob.mx/ 

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 kgCO2e 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 kgCO2e per tonne of delivered 

jatropha oil. (For comparison, for the 

March 2010 RFS rule we estimated land 

use change emissions of 1,158 kgCO2e 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 

50For the tables in this Notice, the numbers in 

parentheses are negative and the totals may not sum 

due to rounding. 

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. 

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 onequarter 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61415 

51Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil 

Production and Transport GHG Emissions, Air and 

Radiation Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. 

52See Section 2.4 of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule, http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. 

53See Section 2.4 of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule, http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf. 

54Based on the methodology developed for the 

March 2010 RFS rule, the soil carbon stocks reach 

equilibrium after 20 years. 

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 

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 

only case 

Brazil and 

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. 

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

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 

Only case 

Brazil and 

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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 

55See ‘‘GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil 

Production: Literature Review and Synthesis’’ on 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. 

56For details on this calculation see the ‘‘Jatropha 

Lifecycle GHG Calculations’’ spreadsheet on Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0293. 

57Other 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. 

58The pre-treatment data provided in the GCEH 

petition is within the range of values EPA found in 

the literature. 

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 

only case 

Mexico and 

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 

on unused 

grassland in 

Mexico in Brazil 

Jatropha 

produced on 

agricultural land 

Case 

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 

kgCO2e per ton of delivered jatropha 

oil.56

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 61417 

59USDA (2014). ‘‘Federal Noxious Weed List.’’ 

Available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_

health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/

weedlist.pdf. 

60USDA 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. 

61For details on the requirements imposed on 

Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum, see the 

rule published on July 11, 2013 (78 FR 41702), 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2013–07–11/pdf/

2013–16488.pdf. 

emissions from pre-treatment are 

approximately 4.7 kgCO2e 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 pretreatment emissions on a case-by-case 

basis when evaluating petitions from 

specific biofuel production facilities. 

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 pretreated 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 pretreated. 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 

kgCO2e/mmBtu and the oil transport 

emissions to be 10 kgCO2e/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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 

62Totals 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. 

63For 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). 

64The 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). 

TABLE III–11—PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT GHG EMISSIONS FOR JATROPHA OIL

[kgCO2e per tonne of delivered oil] 62

Emissions category 

Jatropha oil 

Soybean oil Produced on 

Unused grassland 

in Mexico 

and Brazil 

Produced on agricultural land 

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. 

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 biomassbased 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 197 / Tuesday, October 13, 2015 / Notices 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ 20415–0641; FRL –9935–60–OW] 

Proposed Information Collection 

Request; Comment Request; 

Information Collection Request for 

Reporting Requirements for BEACH 

Act Grants (Renewal) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is planning to submit an 

information collection request (ICR), 

‘‘Information collection request for 

reporting requirements for BEACH act 

grants (renewal)’’ (EPA ICR No. 2048.05, 

OMB Control No. 2040–0244) to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public 

comments on specific aspects of the 

proposed information collection as 

described below. This is a proposed 

extension of the ICR, which is currently 

approved through December 31, 2015. 

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor 

and a person is not required to respond 

to a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before December 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ 

20415–0614 online using 

www.regulations.gov (our preferred 

method), or by mail to: EPA Docket 

Center, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes profanity, threats, 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tracy Bone, OW, 4305T, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–564–5257; 

email address: bone.tracy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supporting documents which explain 

in detail the information that the EPA 

will be collecting are available in the 

public docket for this ICR. The docket 

can be viewed online at 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The telephone number 

for the Docket Center is 202–566–1744. 

For additional information about EPA’s 

public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments 

and information to enable it to: (i) 

evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (ii) evaluate the 

accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (iv) minimize the burden 

of the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. EPA will consider the 

comments received and amend the ICR 

as appropriate. The final ICR package 

will then be submitted to OMB for 

review and approval. At that time, EPA 

will issue another Federal Register 

notice to announce the submission of 

the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to 

submit additional comments to OMB. 

Abstract: The Beaches Environmental 

Assessment and Coastal Health 

(BEACH) Act amends the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) in part and authorizes the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to award BEACH Act Program 

Development and Implementation 

Grants to coastal and Great Lakes states, 

tribes, and territories (collectively 

referred to as states) for their beach 

monitoring and notification programs. 

The grants will assist those states to 

develop and implement a consistent 

approach to monitor recreational water 

quality; assess, manage, and 

communicate health risks from 

waterborne microbial contamination; 

notify the public of pollution 

occurrences, and post beach advisories 

and closures to prevent public exposure 

to microbial pathogens. To qualify for a 

BEACH Act Grant, a state must submit 

information to EPA documenting that its 

beach monitoring and notification 

program is consistent with 11 

performance criteria outlined in the 

National Beach Guidance and Required 

Performance Criteria for Grants, 2014 

Edition. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Respondents/affected entities: Entities 

potentially affected by this action are 

environmental and public health 

agencies in coastal and Great Lakes 

states, territories, and tribes. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Required to obtain the grants as directed 

by the Beaches Environmental 

Assessment and Coastal Health 

(BEACH) Act amendment to the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). 

Estimated number of respondents: 38. 

Frequency of response: Submitting 

monitoring and notification reports 

quarterly, all other reporting annual. 

Total estimated burden: 92,391 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.03(b) 

Total estimated cost: $13,302,102 (per 

year), includes $9,731,280 operation & 

maintenance costs. There are no capital 

costs. 

Changes in Estimates: There is an 

increase of 3,579 hours in the total 

estimated respondent burden compared 

with the ICR currently approved by 

OMB. This increase is due to an 

additional respondent qualifying for a 

grant and to additional performance 

criteria related to public evaluation of 

programs and implementation 

schedules, which are discussed in the 

updated grant guidance document, 

National Beach Guidance and Required 

Performance Criteria for Grants, 2014 

Edition. 

Dated: October 1, 2015. 

Elizabeth Southerland, 

Director, Office of Science and Technology. 

[FR Doc. 2015–26037 Filed 10–9–15; 08:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK 

[Public Notice 2015–3020] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S. 

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and 

comments request. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES