Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Notices 41033 

1018TH—MEETING—Continued 

[Regular Meeting—July 16, 2015, 10:00 a.m.] 

Item No. Docket No. Company 

C–3 .................... RM12–11–003 ......................................... Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations. 

Issued: July 9, 2015. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

A free webcast of this event is 

available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone 

with Internet access who desires to view 

this event can do so by navigating to 

www.ferc.gov’s Calendar of Events and 

locating this event in the Calendar. The 

event will contain a link to its webcast. 

The Capitol Connection provides 

technical support for the free webcasts. 

It also offers access to this event via 

television in the DC area and via phone 

bridge for a fee. If you have any 

questions, visit 

www.CapitolConnection.org or contact 

Danelle Springer or David Reininger at 

703–993–3100. 

Immediately following the conclusion 

of the Commission Meeting, a press 

briefing will be held in the Commission 

Meeting Room. Members of the public 

may view this briefing in the designated 

overflow room. This statement is 

intended to notify the public that the 

press briefings that follow Commission 

meetings may now be viewed remotely 

at Commission headquarters, but will 

not be telecast through the Capitol 

Connection service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17305 Filed 7–10–15; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER15–2129–000] 

Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC; 

Supplemental Notice That Initial 

Market-Based Rate Filing Includes 

Request for Blanket Section 204 

Authorization 

This is a supplemental notice in the 

above-referenced proceeding of Slate 

Creek Wind Project, LLC’s application 

for market-based rate authority, with an 

accompanying rate tariff, noting that 

such application includes a request for 

blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 

part 34, of future issuances of securities 

and assumptions of liability. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to 

protest should file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 

385.214). Anyone filing a motion to 

intervene or protest must serve a copy 

of that document on the Applicant. 

Notice is hereby given that the 

deadline for filing protests with regard 

to the applicant’s request for blanket 

authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 

future issuances of securities and 

assumptions of liability, is July 28, 

2015. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper, using the 

FERC Online links at http:// 

www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic 

service, persons with Internet access 

who will eFile a document and/or be 

listed as a contact for an intervenor 

must create and validate an 

eRegistration account using the 

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling 

link to log on and submit the 

intervention or protests. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 5 copies 

of the intervention or protest to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

The filings in the above-referenced 

proceeding are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the appropriate link in the 

above list. They are also available for 

electronic review in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room in Washington, 

DC. There is an eSubscription link on 

the Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive email notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please email 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Dated: July 8, 2015. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17222 Filed 7–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0092; FRL–9930–50– 

OAR] 

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on 

an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Attributable to Production 

and Transport of Cotton (Gossypium 

spp.) Seed 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 (GHG) 

emissions attributable to the production 

and transport of Gossypium spp. seed 

oil (‘‘cottonseed oil’’) feedstock for use 

in making biofuels such as biodiesel, 

renewable diesel, and jet fuel. This 

document explains EPA’s analysis of the 

feedstock production and transportrelated components of the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of biofuel made from 

cottonseed oil, including both direct 

and indirect agricultural and forestry 

sector emissions. This notice also 

describes how EPA may apply this 

analysis in the future to determine 

whether biofuels produced from 

cottonseed oil meet the necessary GHG 

reductions required for qualification as 

renewable fuel under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard program. Based on this 

analysis, we anticipate that biofuels 

produced from cottonseed oil could 

qualify as biomass-based diesel or 

advanced biofuel if typical fuel 

production process technologies are 

used. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0092, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Air and Radiation Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0092. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0092, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
41034 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Notices 

1See 75 FR 14670. 

code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA/DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention Air 

and Radiation Docket, ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0092. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0092. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Ramig, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 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: 

This document is organized as 

follows: 

I. Introduction 

II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated 

With Use of Cottonseed Oil as a Biofuel 

Feedstock 

A. Feedstock Description, Production, and 

Distribution 

1. Production of Cottonseed Oil-Based 

Biofuels 

2. Cottonseed Oil Production Economics 

3. Replacement of Cottonseed Oil in 

Vegetable Oil Markets 

4. Upstream GHG Implications of 

Cottonseed Oil Use as a Biofuel 

Feedstock 

B. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG 

Emissions 

C. Fuel Production and Distribution 

III. Summary 

I. Introduction 

As part of changes to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) program 

regulations published on March 26, 

2010 1 (the ‘‘March 2010 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 Table 1 

to 40 CFR 80.1426 as eligible for 

purposes of the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) 

requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) 

reductions to qualify as renewable fuel 

or one of three subsets of renewable fuel 

(biomass-based diesel, cellulosic 

biofuel, or advanced biofuel). EPA may 

also independently approve additional 

fuel pathways not currently listed in 

Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for 

participation in the RFS program, or a 

third-party may petition for EPA to 

evaluate a new fuel pathway in 

accordance with 40 CFR 80.1416. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA 

received a petition from the National 

Cottonseed Products Association 

(NCPA), requesting that EPA evaluate 

the lifecycle GHG emissions for biofuels 

produced using Gossypium spp. seed oil 

(‘‘cottonseed oil’’), and that EPA provide 

a determination of the renewable fuel 

categories, if any, for which such 

biofuels may be eligible. EPA’s lifecycle 

analyses are used to assess the overall 

GHG impacts of a fuel throughout each 

stage of its production and use. The 

results of these analyses, considering 

uncertainty and the weight of available 

evidence, are used to determine whether 

a fuel meets the necessary GHG 

reductions required under the 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, fuel 

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 indirect 

emissions from land use changes, 

agricultural sector impacts, and 

production of co-products from biofuel 

production. 

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 

cottonseed 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 reasons described in 

Section II below, we believe that, as a 

conservative estimate, 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 cottonseed oil. 

If appropriate, EPA will update its 

evaluation of the feedstock production 

and transport phases of the lifecycle 

analysis for cottonseed 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 cottonseed 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 

cottonseed oil feedstock as described in 

this document, including the potential 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Notices 41035 

2United States Department of Agriculture, 

‘‘National Oil Crops Yearbook 2014’’, available at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-cropsyearbook.aspx (Last Accessed: January 14th, 2015). 

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 

‘‘FAOSTAT’’, available at: http://faostat.fao.org/ 

(Last Accessed: January 29th, 2015). 

3 Ibid. 

4 Ibid. 

5Based on conversations with Michael Dowd of 

the USDA Agricultural Research Service on 

December 30th, 2014 and June 17th, 2015. 

6 In the USDA data considered here, crop years 

begin in October of the first year listed and end in 

September of the second year listed. 

7U.S. cottonseed oil production has averaged 

about 800 million pounds since the 2003/04 crop 

year. According to the USDA Oil Crops Yearbook 

2014, production in 2012/13 was also about 800 

million pounds and production in 2013/14 was 

approximately 630 million pounds. 

8U.S. soybean oil production has averaged about 

19.5 billion pounds since the 2003/04 crop year. 

According to the USDA Oil Crops Yearbook 2014, 

production in 2012/13 was about 19.8 billion 

pounds and production in 2013/14 was 

approximately 19.7 billion pounds. 

9This occurred in December 2012, when, 

according to USDA data, soybean oil averaged 47.16 

cents per pound and cottonseed oil averaged 49.05 

cents per pound. 

10This occurred in May of 2014, when, according 

to USDA data, soybean oil averaged 40.68 cents per 

pound and cottonseed oil averaged 84.25 cents per 

pound. 

indirect impacts. 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. 

II. Analysis of GHG Emissions 

Associated With Use of Cottonseed Oil 

as a Biofuel Feedstock 

EPA has evaluated the production and 

transport portion of the lifecycle GHG 

impacts of using cottonseed oil as a 

biofuel feedstock, based on information 

provided in the petition and other data 

gathered by EPA. Based on this 

evaluation, EPA believes that new 

agricultural sector modeling is not 

needed to evaluate this portion of the 

lifecycle GHG impacts of using 

cottonseed oil as a biofuel feedstock. As 

explained below, our analysis makes the 

conservative assumption that cottonseed 

oil diverted from the vegetable oil 

markets for food and industrial use to 

biofuel production will be replaced with 

soybean oil rather than result in 

additional production of cottonseed oil 

or any other vegetable oil. Therefore, in 

this analysis, we are applying the same 

agricultural sector impacts for soybean 

oil to cottonseed oil on a per-pound-offeedstock basis. Based on this analysis 

(described below), we propose to 

evaluate the agricultural sector GHG 

emissions impacts of using cottonseed 

oil in responding to petitions received 

pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by 

assuming that GHG emissions are 

similar to those associated with the use 

of soybean oil for biofuel production. 

We invite comment on this proposed 

approach. 

A. Feedstock Description, Production, 

and Distribution 

1. Production of Cottonseed Oil-Based 

Biofuels 

Cottonseed oil is the fourth most 

produced vegetable oil in the U.S., after 

soybean oil, corn oil, and canola oil 

respectively. It is the seventh most 

consumed vegetable oil in the U.S., 

behind soybean oil, canola oil, palm oil, 

corn oil, coconut oil, and olive oil 

respectively. It accounts for about 

2.5–4 percent of U.S. production and 

about 1.5–2.5 percent of U.S. 

consumption of vegetable oil.2

Internationally, cottonseed oil is the 

sixth most produced and consumed 

vegetable oil, representing about 3–3.5 

percent of global production and 

consumption.3 Over the last decade, 

annual U.S. cottonseed oil production 

has averaged just under 800 million 

pounds.4 If this entire supply were used 

for biodiesel and/or renewable diesel 

production, which is highly unlikely for 

reasons discussed below, it would 

generate approximately 100 million 

gallons of fuel. Since U.S. biodiesel and 

renewable diesel production was 

approximately 1.5 billion gallons in 

2014, the potential contribution of 

cottonseed oil is relatively small in 

comparison to the overall biodiesel and 

renewable diesel market. 

Cottonseed oil is preferred for a 

number of specialty uses by certain 

producers, including the frying of potato 

chips and the preservation of smoked 

shellfish. According to industry experts 

in government and the private sector 

consulted by EPA, many producers 

strongly prefer cottonseed oil over its 

alternatives, believing that the type of 

oil used for these products has a very 

significant impact on the quality of the 

product itself. Market experts also noted 

to EPA that these producers have 

historically been willing to pay a 

significant premium to maintain their 

supply of cottonseed oil when supplies 

become limited.5

This behavior is supported by 

available historical data. Figure II.A.1– 

1 below illustrates one of multiple 

examples from recent history. In the 

2012/13 crop year, cottonseed oil 

production was near the ten-year 

average.6 However, in the 2013/14 crop 

year, cottonseed oil production was 

down significantly, about 20 percent 

below the ten-year average.7 Conversely, 

these two crop years were both good for 

soybean oil, with production levels just 

above the ten-year average.8 In 2012/13, 

when both oilseeds produced around 

their recent averages, the peak monthly 

price spread between soybean oil and 

cottonseed oil was about 3 cents per 

pound.9 However, in 2013/14 when 

cottonseed oil supply was heavily 

constrained, the monthly average price 

spread grew to as much as 43.5 cents 

per pound.10


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
41036 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Notices 

11United States Department of Agriculture, 

‘‘National Oil Crops Yearbook 2014’’, available at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-cropsyearbook.aspx (Last Accessed: January 14th, 2015). 

12USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, 

‘‘Monthly Feedstuff Prices and Milling and Baking 

News’’, multiple editions. In this example, by 

‘‘approximately equal’’ we mean that there was less 

than a 1 cent difference between the prices of 

cottonseed oil and soybean oil. 

13Based on conversations with Michael Dowd of 

the USDA Agricultural Research Service on 

December 30th, 2014 and June 17th, 2015. 

14Based on conversations with Michael Dowd of 

the USDA Agricultural Research Service on 

December 30th, 2014 and June 17th, 2015; based 

also on memo from NCPA [EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0092–0001; EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0092–0002]. 

As Figure II.A.1–1 illustrates, 

cottonseed oil can approach price parity 

with soybean oil at times of average or 

above-average supply of cottonseed oil. 

However, the price trend shown above 

for 2013 should not be taken as 

representative of the full historical 

record. Cottonseed oil does not often 

achieve actual price parity with soybean 

oil. According to historical monthly 

price data from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), the national 

average monthly price for cottonseed oil 

was approximately equal to or below 

that of soybean oil in only 23 of the last 

180 months (15 years).12 Even in the 

middle months of 2013, when soybean 

oil and cottonseed oil prices appear to 

converge in Figure II.A.1–1, cottonseed 

oil actually maintained a small 

premium over soybean oil, though in a 

few months of 2013 this premium was 

less than a cent per pound. In only one 

month out of the last fifteen years, 

September 2004, was the monthly 

average price of cottonseed oil more 

than one cent per pound cheaper than 

that of soybean oil. For the majority of 

the recent historical record, cottonseed 

oil has maintained a significant price 

premium over soybean oil, averaging 

approximately 7 cents per pound over 

the last 15 years. 

Based on information from USDA 

vegetable oil market experts, demand for 

cottonseed oil for specialty uses like 

those cited above is extremely inelastic, 

meaning that demand for this volume of 

cottonseed oil would not be 

significantly impacted by an increase in 

the price of cottonseed oil.13 It is 

therefore highly unlikely that biofuel 

producers could bid cottonseed oil away 

from such specialty uses. This 

inelasticity of demand dramatically 

shrinks the potential amount of 

cottonseed oil that might be utilized for 

biofuel production and the potential 

impact that approving a pathway for 

cottonseed oil might have on vegetable 

oil markets. The data suggest that, in 

most years, cottonseed oil would not be 

price competitive with soybean oil for 

biofuel feedstock use in most locations. 

This suggests that cottonseed oil is 

unlikely to be used for biofuel 

production except in years where 

cottonseed oil prices are significantly 

lower than normal relative to soybean 

oil. Even then, as discussed below, 

cottonseed oil is likely to be used as a 

feedstock predominantly by biofuel 

production facilities located near 

cottonseed crushing facilities. 

Conversely, the data also suggest that 

in some circumstances, cottonseed oil 

may achieve approximate price parity 

with soybean oil. This trend in pricing 

indicates cottonseed oil could compete 

on price with soybean oil as biofuel 

feedstock in times of abundant supply, 

or possibly in a year with low soybean 

oil production but normal cottonseed oil 

production, both of which might be 

expected to narrow the normal price 

gap. This trend also indicates that, when 

cottonseed oil prices are relatively low, 

the U.S. market values cottonseed oil at 

about the same price as soybean oil, 

rather than cheaper alternatives like 

palm oil or waste oils and greases or 

more expensive alternatives like 

sunflower seed oil. In other words, the 

historical pricing data available 

indicates that the primary competitor of 

cottonseed oil under these 

circumstances is soybean oil, since the 

prices converge, or at least nearly 

converge, under such circumstances. 

Based on consultation with USDA 

and private sector vegetable oil industry 

experts and given the historical data 

presented above, we believe that the 

actual potential for biodiesel and nonester renewable diesel production from 

cottonseed oil is considerably smaller 

than the 100 million gallons noted 

above.14 Based on a conversation with 

NCPA we believe that the actual 

potential is more likely in the range of 

20 million gallons of biodiesel per year 

(representing roughly 150–160 million 

pounds of cottonseed oil), and could be 

considerably smaller than that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN14JY15.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Notices 41037 

15Based on memo from NCPA [EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2015–0092–0001; EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0092– 

0002]. 

16According to the USDA NASS database, cotton 

lint has represented about 85 percent of revenue per 

acre fairly consistently since at least the year 1980. 

(Source: United States Department of Agriculture, 

‘‘National Agricultural Statistical Service 

Database’’, available at: http:// 

quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ [Last Accessed: January 

14th, 2015]). 

17United States Department of Agriculture, 

‘‘National Agricultural Statistical Service 

Database’’, available at: http:// 

quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (Last Accessed: January 

14th, 2015). 

depending on market conditions.15 As 

noted above, this is largely due to the 

inelastic nature of cottonseed oil 

demand for specialty uses, which have 

demonstrated their willingness to pay 

prices for cottonseed oil that would be 

prohibitive to biofuel producers when 

forced to compete for limited supplies 

of cottonseed oil. Except in years with 

high levels of cottonseed oil production 

or uncharacteristically low demand 

from specialty users (for example, if 

potato chip production were to be 

unusually low in a particular year), we 

do not expect that there will be 

significant quantities of cottonseed oil 

available at prices that biodiesel 

producers would consider competitive. 

As a result, were EPA to approve 

pathways for cottonseed oil-based fuels 

and begin registering producers, we 

would not expect it to have a significant 

impact on U.S. biofuel production or 

U.S. vegetable oil production, 

consumption, and trade patterns. 

2. Cottonseed Oil Production Economics 

The methods of producing cottonseed 

oil are nearly identical to those of other 

vegetable seed oils. The seeds are 

crushed, oil and meal are separated, and 

the two products are sold separately 

into the vegetable oil and animal feed 

markets respectively. However, the 

production of the cotton oilseed is 

unique among major oilseeds because 

the seed itself is not a primary crop 

product. Rather, it is generally 

considered a byproduct of the 

production of cotton lint for fiber. Fiber 

production is the primary purpose of 

cotton farming, representing 

approximately 85 percent of the value of 

the average U.S. acre of cotton, and it 

drives the decisions of farmers regarding 

whether to plant cotton and what types 

of farming practices to utilize.16 The 

cotton seed and its products represent 

the remaining approximately 15 percent 

of average value per acre. Conversely, 

for soybeans and other major oilseeds, 

the seed itself comprises nearly 100 

percent of the value per acre. 

While cottonseed does have value and 

provides farmers with a secondary 

revenue stream, most cotton farmers 

consider it to be a byproduct of 

producing cotton lint. The efforts of 

cotton breeders over a long time period 

to maximize lint yields relative to seed 

yields, demonstrated by yield trends in 

cottonseed and cotton lint, support this 

hypothesis. Since 1985, the U.S. average 

cottonseed yield per bale of cotton lint 

produced has declined from nearly 800 

pounds per bale to less than 700 pounds 

per bale (See Figure II.A.2–1 below). 

Conversely, over that same period, the 

U.S. average cotton lint yield has 

increased from 630 pounds per acre 

harvested to over 800 pounds per acre 

harvested. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN14JY15.012</GPH>
41038 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Notices 

18United States Department of Agriculture, 

‘‘National Agricultural Statistical Service 

Database’’, available at: http:// 

quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (Last Accessed: June 2nd, 

2015). 

The secondary nature of cottonseed 

production for cotton farmers has 

significant implications for our study of 

the impacts of cottonseed oil production 

for use in making biofuels. In a given 

year, weather conditions may reduce 

lint yields and force farmers to rely 

more on seed revenue. But when 

making decisions about what to plant, 

when to plant, and what types and 

quantities of crop inputs to utilize, lint 

yields are the first priority of cotton 

farmers. Further, the fact that cottonseed 

oil will only be competitive as a biofuel 

feedstock under certain relatively 

uncommon and unpredictable 

circumstances makes it even more 

unlikely that establishing pathways for 

cottonseed oil-based fuels under the 

RFS would have any impact on planting 

decisions. While farmers will seek to 

maximize the price they receive for 

cottonseed, it is highly unlikely that an 

increase in cottonseed value would have 

any significant impact on the behavior 

of cotton farmers. 

Because changes in cottonseed oil 

prices are unlikely to affect overall 

cotton production decisions, it is highly 

unlikely that the use of cottonseed oil as 

a biofuel feedstock will significantly 

affect cottonseed production or the 

supply of cottonseed oil in the U.S. 

vegetable oil markets. Imports of 

cottonseed oil are approximately zero. 

We do not expect demand for 

cottonseed oil as biofuel feedstock to 

change this, since the costs of creating 

and operating new trade routes would 

make cottonseed oil uncompetitive with 

alternative oil feedstocks, especially 

soybean oil. Instead, we expect that, in 

the rare instances when cottonseed oil 

prices approach parity with soybean oil 

prices, biofuel producers might utilize 

some quantity of cottonseed oil. Since, 

in most previous historical instances of 

this near price parity, cottonseed oil is 

still somewhat more expensive than 

soybean oil, we would expect to only 

see this behavior amongst biofuel 

producers with renewable fuel 

production facilities near cottonseed 

crushing locations, since this oil could 

be sourced with minimal transport 

costs. If some quantity of cottonseed oil 

is diverted from the vegetable oil 

markets to the biofuel market, any 

unfilled demand for vegetable oil will 

most likely be met with increased 

consumption of other vegetable oils, for 

the reasons outlined in the next section. 

3. Replacement of Cottonseed Oil in 

Vegetable Oil Markets 

As noted in Section II.A.1 above, 

cottonseed oil demand in the U.S. tends 

to be inelastic until the needs of 

specialty consumers are fully met, and 

the amount of cottonseed oil that could 

be bid away from such users for biofuel 

production is likely small until that 

threshold is reached. Whether or not 

any of this remaining cottonseed oil will 

actually be used for biofuel production 

will depend on the price of cottonseed 

oil relative to soybean oil at that time. 

In the event that cottonseed oil is 

used as a biofuel feedstock, the small 

volume likely to be available in any 

given region makes it highly unlikely 

that cottonseed oil could meet the total 

feedstock needs of a biofuel production 

facility. Rather, we expect that U.S. 

biofuel producers who are already 

utilizing vegetable oil feedstocks and are 

located near cottonseed crushing 

facilities will have the option to include 

some amount of cottonseed oil in their 

mix of feedstocks when the price is 

right. 

There are two likely ways that biofuel 

producers may include some amount of 

cottonseed oil in their feedstock mix. 

First, biofuel producers may at times 

substitute cottonseed oil for some 

amount of soybean oil and produce the 

same volume of fuel as before. Second, 

they may at times use low-priced 

cottonseed oil to increase their total 

volume of fuel production. While the 

market response is likely to be some 

combination of both scenarios, for this 

analysis we have assumed the more 

conservative scenario from a lifecycle 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN14JY15.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Notices 41039 

19Based on conversations with Michael Dowd of 

the USDA Agricultural Research Service on 

December 30th, 2014 and June 17th, 2015. 

20See EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161–3173.9 and 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161–3173.10 for more 

information. 

21EPA’s lifecycle analysis of soybean oil biodiesel 

for the March 2010 RFS rule evaluated the GHG 

impacts for a scenario with increased soybean oil 

biodiesel production compared to a control case. To 

calculate the results on a normalized basis for the 

scenario evaluated, we divide the increase in GHG 

emissions by the increase in the amount of soybean 

oil used for biodiesel production, which gives the 

normalized results in units of gCO2e per pound of 

soybean oil. The lifecycle GHG analysis that EPA 

conducted for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel 

derived from soybean oil feedstock is described in 

section 2.6.1.3 (Biodiesel Results) of the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA– 

420–R–10–006). 

22EPA’s soybean oil biodiesel assessment uses a 

biodiesel conversion efficiency of 7.76 pounds of 

soybean oil per gallon of biodiesel, and biodiesel 

lower heating value of 118,000 British Thermal 

Units (Btu) per gallon. Therefore, GHG emissions of 

646 gCO2e/lb soybean oil converts to 41,247 gCO2e 

per million Btu of soybean oil biodiesel. This value 

includes the emissions associated with soybean oil 

delivered to a biodiesel production facility, 

including the emissions from growing and 

harvesting the soybeans, transporting the soybeans 

to a crushing facility, extracting the soybean oil, 

transporting the soybean oil to a biodiesel facility, 

and all of the significant indirect emissions such as 

from land use change. 

GHG perspective. This second scenario 

is more conservative because in the first 

scenario the displaced soybean oil could 

backfill in other vegetable oil markets 

for the cottonseed oil consumed for 

biofuel production and total vegetable 

oil production is unlikely to change. In 

the second scenario, where total biofuel 

production increases, cottonseed oil is 

being diverted away from some other 

use, creating a shortfall in vegetable oil 

supplies for some portion of the market. 

Either prices for vegetable oil will rise 

(in which case it is less likely that 

biofuel producers would still consume 

the cottonseed oil, since they were only 

purchasing it because of the low price) 

or additional vegetable oil will need to 

be supplied. In either case, the GHG 

emissions will be greater in the second 

scenario, where there is an incentive to 

expand crop production. If the results of 

analyzing the conservative scenario 

associated with greater GHG emissions 

indicates that biofuels produced from 

cottonseed oil satisfy the 50 percent 

lifecycle GHG emissions reduction 

requirement for biomass-based diesel 

and advanced biofuels, we can conclude 

that the threshold determination would 

be the same under the less conservative 

but more likely scenario. 

If the use of cottonseed oil for biofuel 

does create an increase in total demand 

for vegetable oil, we believe the direct 

result will be a corresponding increase 

in soybean oil consumption in the 

United States. As we established above, 

cotton farmers are unlikely to respond 

to increased demand for cottonseed oil. 

Instead, we are likely to see an increase 

in production of the vegetable oil most 

competitive with the cottonseed oil 

being diverted to biofuel feedstock use. 

Based on consultation with oilseed 

market experts at USDA and recent 

historical data (see Section II.A.1), 

which shows cottonseed oil prices 

tracking soybean oil prices, the marginal 

users of cottonseed oil are largely 

indifferent between cottonseed and 

soybean oil when they approach price 

parity.19 Therefore, it follows that if 

vegetable oil is needed to backfill for 

cottonseed oil used as biofuel, soybean 

oil would be the most likely vegetable 

oil to meet this demand in the United 

States. 

To the extent that soybean oil is used 

to satisfy U.S. domestic demand for 

vegetable oil that would have otherwise 

been met with cottonseed oil, there 

would likely be secondary impacts on 

the production and consumption of 

other vegetable oils internationally and 

the agricultural sector more broadly. In 

the modeling we conducted for the 

March 2010 rule, we projected that the 

use of soybean oil for biofuel feedstock 

would cause a global increase in 

vegetable oil production. In that 

analysis, we projected that the majority 

of this increase would come in the form 

of additional soybean oil production, 

but that additional canola, palm, 

peanut, and sunflower oil production 

would also occur in some parts of the 

world, with secondary impacts on other 

parts of the agricultural sector.20

Therefore, by assuming that cottonseed 

oil would have similar indirect impacts 

on other vegetable oils, our analysis 

takes into account the ripple effects in 

the vegetable oil and other agricultural 

markets resulting from an increase in 

biofuel demand in the U.S. We invite 

comment on this approach. 

4. Upstream GHG Implications of 

Cottonseed Oil Use as a Biofuel 

Feedstock 

Our analysis indicates that the most 

likely market impact of the use of 

cottonseed oil as biofuel feedstock is 

some feedstock swapping between 

cottonseed oil and soybean oil and some 

increase in total biofuel production from 

vegetable oil, as explained in the 

previous section. However, as a 

conservative assumption, we assume in 

our analysis that any use of cottonseed 

oil as biofuel feedstock will result in an 

increase in total biofuel production and 

that there would be a corresponding 

increase in U.S. demand for vegetable 

oil. In such a hypothetical situation, the 

alternative product used by marginal 

U.S. consumers of vegetable oil is likely 

to be soybean oil. We do not expect any 

shift in the supply of cotton or 

cottonseed oil. The GHG emissions 

associated with cottonseed oil at the 

feedstock production and transport 

stages of the lifecycle are likely to be 

similar to or less than those we have 

previously estimated for soybean oil on 

a normalized basis.21 Therefore, we are 

proposing to use the upstream GHG 

emissions associated with an increase in 

soybean oil in our lifecycle analysis for 

cottonseed oil. In the March 2010 rule, 

we determined that the GHG emissions 

associated with soybean oil at the 

feedstock production and transport 

stages of the lifecycle were 

approximately 646 grams of carbon 

dioxide equivalent (gCO2e) per pound of 

soybean oil.22 Based on our evaluation, 

we believe that it is reasonable, as a 

conservative estimate, to apply the same 

value for the emissions associated with 

cottonseed oil at the feedstock 

production and transport stages of the 

lifecycle. We invite comment on this 

approach. 

B. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG 

Emissions 

Based on our comparison of 

cottonseed oil to soybean oil, EPA 

proposes to apply the estimate of 

upstream soybean oil feedstock 

production and transport emissions, 

including indirect agricultural and 

forestry sector impacts, to future 

evaluations of petitions proposing to use 

cottonseed oil as a feedstock for biofuel 

production. We believe this approach 

will provide a conservative estimate of 

potential emissions associated with the 

production and transport of cottonseed 

oil. EPA solicits comment on this 

proposed approach. 

C. Fuel Production and Distribution 

Cottonseed oil has physical properties 

that are similar to soybean oil, and is 

suitable for the same conversion 

processes as soybean oil feedstock. In 

addition, the fuel yield per pound of oil 

is expected to be the same for each of 

these feedstocks. After reviewing 

comments received in response to this 

action, we will combine our evaluation 

of agricultural sector GHG emissions 

associated with the use of cottonseed 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
41040 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Notices 

23For information on how to submit a petition for 

biofuel produced from cottonseed 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 cottonseed 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). 

24The 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). 

biofuel producer seeking to generate 

RINs for non-grandfathered volumes of 

biofuel produced from cottonseed 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 cottonseed oil feedstock 

through this action and comment 

process, petitions requesting EPA’s 

evaluation of biofuel pathways 

involving cottonseed oil feedstock will 

not have to include the information for 

new feedstocks specified at 40 CFR 

80.1416(b)(2).23 Based on our evaluation 

of the lifecycle GHG emissions 

attributable to the production and 

transport of cottonseed oil feedstock, 

EPA anticipates that fuel produced from 

cottonseed 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) renewable 

identification numbers (RINs) or 

advanced biofuel (D-code 5) RINs.24

However, EPA will evaluate petitions 

for fuel produced from cottonseed oil 

feedstock on a case-by-case basis. 

III. Summary 

EPA invites public comment on our 

analysis of GHG emissions associated 

with the production and transport of 

cottonseed 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 

petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 

80.1416 which use cottonseed oil as a 

feedstock. 

Dated: June 30, 2015. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–17262 Filed 7–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2013–0677; FRL–9929–99] 

Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its receipt 

of test data submitted pursuant to a test 

rule issued by EPA under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). As 

required by TSCA, this document 

identifies each chemical substance and/ 

or mixture for which test data have been 

received; the uses or intended uses of 

such chemical substance and/or 

mixture; and describes the nature of the 

test data received. Each chemical 

substance and/or mixture related to this 

announcement is identified in Unit I. 

under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information contact: 

Kathy Calvo, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8089; email address: 

calvo.kathy@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Chemical Substances and/or Mixtures 

Information about the following 

chemical substances and/or mixtures is 

provided in Unit IV.: 

D-gluco-heptonic acid, monosodium 

salt, (2.xi.)—(CAS RN 31138–65–5). 

II. Federal Register Publication 

Requirement 

Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 

2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a 

notice in the Federal Register reporting 

the receipt of test data submitted 

pursuant to test rules promulgated 

under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603). 

III. Docket Information 

A docket, identified by the docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2013–0677, has been established 

for this Federal Register document that 

announces the receipt of data. Upon 

EPA’s completion of its quality 

assurance review, the test data received 

will be added to the docket for the 

TSCA section 4 test rule that required 

the test data. Use the docket ID number 

provided in Unit IV. to access the test 

data in the docket for the related TSCA 

section 4 test rule. 

The docket for this Federal Register 

document and the docket for each 

related TSCA section 4 test rule is 

available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

IV. Test Data Received 

This unit contains the information 

required by TSCA section 4(d) for the 

test data received by EPA. 

D-gluco-heptonic acid, monosodium 

salt, (2.xi.)—(CAS RN 31138–65–5). 

1. Chemical Uses: Organic salt used as 

a chelating agent in cosmetics, dairy 

cleaners, bottle cleaners, food contact 

paper and paperboard, manufacturing, 

metal cleaning, kier boiling, caustic 

boil-off, paint stripping, boiler water 

additive for food processing, and as an 

ingredient in aluminum etchant. This 

chemical is also used as a sequestrant, 

latex stabilizer, and in intravenous 

pharmaceuticals. 

2. Applicable Test Rule: Chemical 

testing requirements for second group of 

high production volume chemicals 

(HPV2), 40 CFR 799.5087. 

3. Test Data Received: The following 

listing describes the nature of the test 

data received. The test data will be 

added to the docket for the applicable 

TSCA section 4 test rule and can be 

found by referencing the docket ID 

number provided. EPA reviews of test 

data will be added to the same docket 

upon completion. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES