Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Brassica Carinata Oil for Use in Biofuel Production
Posted Date: 2015-04-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22996-23003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09618]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093-; FRL-9926-80-OAR]

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse 
Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Brassica 
Carinata Oil for Use in Biofuel Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this Notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
inviting comment on its analysis of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
attributable to the production and transport of Brassica carinata 
(carinata) oil feedstock for use in making biofuels such as biodiesel, 
renewable diesel, and jet fuel. This notice explains EPA's analysis of 
the production and transport components of the lifecycle GHG emissions 
of biofuel made from carinata oil, and describes how EPA may apply this 
analysis in the future to determine whether biofuels produced from 
carinata 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 carinata oil could qualify as advanced biofuel if typical fuel 
production process technology conditions are used.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0093, 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-2015-0093.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0093, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 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-2015-0093. 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-
XXXX-XXXX. 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: Michael Shell, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone 
number: 202-564-8479; fax number: 202-564-1177; email address: 
shell.michael@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    This notice is organized as follows:

I. Introduction
II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated with use of Carinata Oil as 
a Biofuel Feedstock
    A. Feedstock Production
    1. Background
    2. Volume Potential
    3. Indirect Impacts
    4. Crop Inputs
    5. Potential Invasiveness
    6. Crushing and Oil Extraction
    B. Feedstock Distribution

[[Page 22997]]

    C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG Emissions
    D. 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 the Table 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 75 FR 14670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 three 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 indirect emissions from land use changes, 
agricultural sector impacts, and production of co-products from biofuel 
production.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA received a petition from Agrisoma 
Biosciences Inc. requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG 
emissions for biofuels produced using Brassica carinata (carinata) 
oil,\2\ and that EPA provide a determination of the renewable fuel 
categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be eligible. As an 
initial step in this process, EPA has conducted an evaluation of the 
GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of carinata 
when it is used as a biofuel feedstock, and is seeking public comment 
on the methodology and results of this evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of this notice, the term ``carinata'' refers to 
the species Brassica Carinata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA expects to consider comments received and then use the 
information to evaluate petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 
that propose to use carinata oil as a feedstock for the production of 
biofuel, and that seek an EPA determination regarding whether such 
biofuels qualify as renewable fuel under the RFS program. In evaluating 
such petitions, EPA will consider the GHG emissions associated with 
petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as emissions 
associated with the transport and use of the finished biofuel, in 
addition to the GHG emissions associated with the production and 
transport of carinata feedstock in determining whether petitioners' 
proposed biofuel production pathway satisfies CAA renewable fuel 
lifecycle GHG reduction requirements.

II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Use of Carinata Oil as a 
Biofuel Feedstock

    EPA has evaluated the lifecycle GHG impacts of using carinata oil 
as a biofuel feedstock, based on information provided in the petition 
and other data gathered by EPA. For these analyses, we used a similar 
approach to that used for camelina oil in a rule published on March 5, 
2013 (the ``March 2013 rule'').\3\ In that rulemaking, EPA determined 
that several renewable fuel pathways using camelina oil feedstock meet 
the required 50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold under the RFS for 
biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel because the GHG emissions 
performance of camelina-based fuels is at least as good as that modeled 
for fuels made from soybean oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 78 FR 14190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that new agricultural sector modeling is not needed to 
evaluate the lifecycle GHG impacts of using carinata oil as a biofuel 
feedstock for purposes of making GHG reduction threshold determinations 
for the RFS program. This is in part because of the similarities of 
carinata oil to soybean oil and camelina oil, and because carinata is 
not expected to have significant land use change impacts. Instead of 
performing new agricultural sector modeling, EPA relied upon the 
soybean oil analysis conducted for the March 2010 rule to assess the 
relative GHG impacts of growing and transporting carinata oil for use 
as a biofuel feedstock. We have looked at every component of the 
agricultural sector GHG emissions from carinata oil production, 
including land use change, crop inputs, crushing and oil extraction, 
and feedstock distribution. For each component, we believe that the GHG 
emissions are less than or comparable to the emissions from the 
equivalent component of soybean oil production. Based on this analysis 
(described below), we propose to evaluate the agricultural sector GHG 
emissions impacts of using carinata 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 Production

1. Background
    Brassica carinata (carinata), commonly known as ``Ethiopian 
mustard'' or ``Ethiopian rapeseed'', is an oilseed crop within the 
flowering plant family Brassicaceae and is native to the Ethiopian 
highlands.
    Carinata oil has high concentrations of erucic acid which make it 
less suitable for food uses but potentially attractive for 
biolubricants and polymers, and other industrial 
applications.4 5 It is not used for food in the United 
States where more desireable substitutes are readily available, though 
there is a limited amount of use for dietary purposes in Africa and 
western and southern Asia.\6\ The vast majority of carinata currently 
grown in the United States is in limited field trials to evaluate its 
qualities as a feedstock to produce biofuels. The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) does not track the production or end-uses of 
carinata but the petitioner believes 95% of

[[Page 22998]]

current carinata research has been for biofuels with some limited 
research on enhanced oil recovery applications.\7\ Compared to other 
oilseeds, carinata seed contains a high oil content (44%) which means a 
greater portion of the feedstock can be converted to biofuel.\8\ 
Carinata oil contains longer carbon chains than other oilseeds, making 
it more suited to be broken down for industrial uses, and long chain 
fatty acids make it ideal for biodiesel production. When grown, 
carinata provides multiple benefits as a biofumigant, serving to 
suppress disease and insects,\9\ while also controlling weeds and other 
soil-borne pests.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinata- a new molecular 
farming platform for delivering bio-industrial oil feestocks: case 
studies of genetic modifications to improve very long-chain fatty 
acid and oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 
4.5: 538-561.
    \5\ Fahd, S. et. al (2010) Energy, Environmental and Economic 
Assessment of Non-Food Use of Brassica Carinata http://www.societalmetabolism.org/aes2010/Proceeds/DIGITAL%20PROCEEDINGS_files/POSTERS/P_138_Sandra_Fahd.pdf.
    \6\ Plant Resources of Tropical Africa (PROTA). PROTA 14: 
Vegatable Oils Record Display, Brassica Carinata http://database.prota.org/PROTAhtml/Brassica%20carinata_En.htm.
    \7\ Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. petition to the EPA, August 2013.
    \8\ Earlier strains of Brassica carinata have contained various, 
lesser oil contents. However, selective breeding and developments 
through transgenics have produced strains with high oil contents. 
Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinata- a new molecular farming 
platform for delivering bio-industrial oil feestocks: case studies 
of genetic modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid and 
oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 4.5: 538-
561. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.231/epdf.
    \9\ Warwick (2011) at 49 (citations omitted); see also I.A. 
Zasada and H. Ferris (2004), Nematode suppression with brassicaceous 
amendments: application based upon glucosinolate profiles, Soil 
Biology & Biochemistry 36:1017-1024.
    \10\ J. Brown and M.J. Morra, Glucosinolate-Containing Seed Meal 
as a Soil Amendment to Control Plant Pests. 2000-2002, National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-510-35254, at 15 (2005), 
available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan, 
C. Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G. Patalano, W. 
Parker (2010), The Efficacy of Biofumigant Meals and Plants to 
Control Wireworm Populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245-
254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Volume Potential
    Carinata will most likely be grown in the U.S. and Canada in semi-
arid, marginal land, as an off-season winter cover crop in the 
southeastern U.S., or on dryland wheat acres during the period that 
they would otherwise be left fallow. In areas with lower precipitation, 
dryland wheat farmers currently leave acres fallow once every three to 
four years to allow additional moisture and nutrients to accumulate and 
control pests. Current research indicates that carinata could be 
introduced into this rotation in certain areas in lieu of fallowing 
without adversely impacting moisture or nutrient accumulation. Land 
featuring a carinata rotation can be returned to wheat cultivation the 
following year with moisture and soil nutrients quantitatively similar 
to a fallow year.\11\ Table V.D.-2 illustrates example wheat and 
carinata rotations, which are expected to be very similar to current 
wheat/camelina rotation systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Shonnard et al., 2010; Lafferty et al., 2009 Long-Term 
Tillage and Cropping Sequence Effects on Dryland Residue and Soil 
Carbon Fractions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24AP15.003

[[Page 22999]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24AP15.004

    As we expect that carinata will primarily be grown in rotation with 
wheat, we based land availability and projected volumes on estimated 
wheat acres. USDA does not systematically collect carinata production 
information; therefore data on historical acreage is limited. The 
latest USDA estimates (December 2014) report approximately 57 million 
acres of wheat in the U.S.\12\ USDA and wheat state cooperative 
extension reports through 2008 indicated that 83% of domestic wheat 
production was under non-irrigated, dryland conditions, and that at 
least 45% of those acres were estimated to follow a wheat/fallow 
rotation. Thus, approximately 21 million acres are potentially suitable 
for carinata production. However, according to an industry projection 
\13\ based on an estimate for camelina, only about nine million of 
these wheat/fallow acres have the appropriate climate, soil profile, 
and market access for carinata production.\14\ Further, the petitioner 
projects another three million acres of fallow land in wheat rotation 
are potentially available for carinata production in Canada. Based on 
our calculations of the potential biodiesel production from carinata, 
as described below, we do not anticipate demand for carinata oil to be 
greater than can be satisfied by available fallow acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Wheat Supply and Use. World Agricultural Supply and 
Demand Estimate (WASDE), December 2014. USDA http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/wasde/wasde-12-10-2014.pdf.
    \13\ Agrisoma Biosciences Inc., petition to EPA, August 2013.
    \14\ Johnson, S. and McCormick, M., Camelina: an Annual Cover 
Crop Under 40 CFR part 80 Subpart M, Memorandum, dated November 5, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to an industry estimate, commercial production of 
carinata in 2012 occurred at over 40 locations across Saskatchewan and 
Alberta, Canada.\15\ The first commercial cultivation of carinata in 
the United States occurred in Montana in 2013, and estimates from the 
original petition indicated that 100,000 acres would be planted in 
2014.\16\ Based on a three year rotation cycle in which only one third 
of the 12 million combined U.S. and Canada wheat acres is typically 
fallow in any given year, EPA estimates that at current average yields 
(1,865 pounds of seed per acre, or 820 pounds of oil per acre), 
approximately 400 million gallons (MG) of carinata-based biodiesel 
could be produced with carinata grown in rotation with existing crop 
acres (assuming 7.6 pounds of oil produces 1 gallon of biodiesel).\17\ 
However, as there is no commercial market for carinata at present, when 
planted, actual acres are expected to be much smaller and dedicated to 
test plots in the near term. Carinata may expand to other regions and 
growing methods in the longer term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In the United States, field trials have occurred or are 
occurring with the University of Florida, Colorado State University, 
Montana State University, South Dakota University, and North Dakota 
State University.
    \16\ Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. Petition to EPA, August 2013.
    \17\ For biodiesel produced from soybean oil, 7.6 pounds of oil 
are also needed for one gallon of biodiesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research is ongoing to improve carinata oil yields, which can be 
expected to increase as experience with growing carinata improves 
cultivation practices and the application of existing technologies are 
more widely adopted. For example, yields of over 1,600 pounds of oil 
per acre have been achieved on test plots. For the purposes of this 
lifecycle GHG analysis, EPA is assuming the intermediate current yield 
of 820 pounds of oil per acre and a biofuel production volume of 400 MG 
of carinata as representing a reasonable projection of production in 
2022.
3. Indirect Impacts
    Unlike commodity crops that are tracked by USDA, carinata does not 
have a well-established, internationally traded market that would be 
significantly affected by an increase in carinata-based biofuels. Based 
on the information provided in the petition, returns on carinata are 
approximately $107 per acre, given average yields of approximately 
1,865 pounds per acre and the current contract price of $0.14 per pound 
(See Table 2). For comparison purposes, the USDA estimates of corn and 
soybean returns, including operating costs but not overhead costs such 
as hired labor, were between $206 and $440 per acre in 2013.\18\ Over 
time, advancements in seed technology, improvements in planting and 
harvesting techniques, and

[[Page 23000]]

changes in input usage could significantly increase future carinata 
yields and returns, but it is unlikely the returns to farmers from 
carinata will ever compete with the returns from corn, soybeans or 
other widely traded commodity crops. In addition, because carinata is 
expected to be grown on fallow land, it will not impact other 
commodities through land competition. For these reasons, EPA has 
determined that, unlike a crop such as soybean, production of carinata-
based biofuels is not expected to have a significant impact on other 
agricultural commodity markets and consequently would not result in 
significant indirect impacts including indirect land use changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ USDA Economic Research Service, Commodity Costs and 
Returns. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx.

                               Table 2--Carinata Costs and Returns, per acre \19\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Inputs                             Rates                             2022 Carinata
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbicides:
    Glysophate (Fall)................  16 oz. ( $0.39/oz)...........  $7.00.
    Glysophate (Spring)..............  16 oz. ( $0.39/oz)...........  $7.00.
    Post.............................  12 oz ( $0.67/oz)............  $8.00.
Seed:
    Carinata seed....................  $.44/lb......................  $7.20 (5 lbs/acre).
Fertilizer:
    Nitrogen Fertilizer..............  $1/lb........................  $60.00 (60 lb/acre).
    Phosphate Fertilizer.............  $1/lb........................  $30.00 (30 lb/acre).
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
Sub-Total:                             .............................  $ 119.20.
 
Logistics:
    Planting Trip....................  .............................  $10.00.
    Harvest & Hauling................  .............................  $25.00.
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
        Total Cost...................  .............................  $154.20.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yields...........................  lbs/ac.......................  1865.
    Price............................  $/lb.........................  $0.14.
            Total Revenue............  .............................  $261.10.
            Returns..................  .............................  $106.90.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we expect most carinata used as a renewable fuel feedstock 
for the RFS program would be grown in the U.S. and Canada, we expect 
that carinata grown in other countries would also not have a 
significant impact on other agricultural commodity markets and would 
therefore not result in significant indirect GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Nitrogen and Phosphate inputs here are based on application 
rates from test plots. Different combinations of the range of 
fertilizer inputs we considered may results in higher or lower 
estimates. Data provided by Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. petition to 
EPA, August 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Crop Inputs
    As part of our analysis of the GHG impacts from growing carinata, 
we compared crop inputs for carinata to those for soybeans. Inputs 
compared include nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus fertilizer, herbicide, 
diesel, and gasoline.\20\ We also looked at the nitrous oxide 
(N2O) emissions from both the nitrogen fertilizer inputs and 
the crop residues associated with carinata.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Diesel and gasoline used for planting and harvesting. These 
values assume that no irrigation is needed.
    \21\ The IPCC equations for N2O emissions were 
updated since our earlier analysis of soybeans. We use the updated 
equations for our calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current literature suggests a range of fertilizer inputs are 
considered appropriate for growing carinata. The petitioner provided 
guidance of 60 lbs per acre of nitrogen fertilizer and 30 lbs per acre 
of phosphorus fertilizer based on application rates for test plots 
featuring continuous cropping systems, which require more intensive 
fertilizing.\22\ We expect that carinata will be grown in fallow 
rotation with other crops, which will require lesser fertilizer 
amounts, comparable to those for camelina.\23\ Those amounts for 
camelina are 40 lbs per acre of nitrogen fertilizer and 15 lbs per acre 
of phosphorous fertilizer.\24\ Other research has shown higher carinata 
growth rates with higher rates of nitrogen applications, but there is 
not consensus on an optimal rate. Therefore, as a conservative estimate 
we provide a high-end estimate of 80 lbs per acre of nitrogen 
fertilizer. Further, the petitioner did not recommend potassium 
fertilizer for carinata production as they assume that the land 
carinata would be grown on has high potassium levels that would not 
require augmentation. As a conservative estimate, we assume potassium 
application rates assumed for camelina as a high input (10 lbs per 
acre). Given the range of estimates, Table 3 shows a range of input 
assumptions for carinata production, compared to the Forest and 
Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM) agricultural input 
assumptions for soybeans, which were used in our assessment of soybeans 
for the March 2010 rule. From the March 2010 rule, we used soybean 
projected yields for 2022 of 1,500 to 3,000 lbs of seed per acre. For 
carinata, we used projected 2022 yields of 1,865 lbs of seed per 
acre.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Petition from Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. to EPA, August 
2013.
    \23\ Cover crops, such as carinata and camelina, require less 
fertilizer input in a fallow rotation than they might if they were 
in a dedicated system as there is residual soil nutrients from the 
primary crop.
    \24\ 78 FR 14190. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 
Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways 
Under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR_2013_03_05/pdf/2013_04929.pdf.
    \25\ Average yield from a series of research plots explored by 
the petitioner. Other studies show a range of yields with various 
nitrogen and seed spacing applications. One such study showed a 
yield from ranging from 552 to 2434 lbs of seed/acre. We believe an 
assumed yield of 1,865 lbs of seed per acre is appropriate.
    Pan, X. et al (2012) The effect of cultivar, seeding rate and 
applied nitrogen on Brassica carinata seed yield and quality in 
contrasting environments. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 92: 
961-971, available at: http://pubs.aic.ca/doi/pdf/10.4141/cjps2011_169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carinata has a higher percentage of oil per pound of seed than 
soybeans. Soybeans are approximately 18% oil by mass, therefore 
crushing one pound of soybeans yields 0.18 pounds of oil. In 
comparison, carinata seeds can contain up to 44% oil.\26\ The 
difference in oil

[[Page 23001]]

yield was taken into account when calculating the emissions per ton of 
feedstock oil included in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, lifecycle GHG 
emissions from feedstock production for carinata and soybeans are 
relatively similar when factoring in variations in oil yields per acre 
and fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, and petroleum use.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Getinet, A. et al (1996) Agronomic performance and seed 
quality of Ethiopian mustard in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of 
Plant Science. 76. 387-392, available at: http://pubs.aic.ca/doi/pdf/10.4141/cjps96_069.
    \27\ For more details on the greenhouse gas emissions associated 
with agricultural inputs, see ``Carinata data and calculations--for 
docket'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093.

               Table 3--Inputs for Carinata and Soybean Production for Projected 2022 Yields \28\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Carinata                       Soybeans (varies by region)
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Emissions (per ton                       Emissions (per ton
                                Inputs (per acre)     carinata oil)    Inputs (per acre)       soybean oil)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N20...........................  N/A..............  584-869 kg CO2eq..  N/A..............  449.0-661.1 kg CO2eq.
Nitrogen Fertilizer...........  40-80 lbs........  160-321 kg CO2eq..  3.5-8.2 lbs......  23.2-79.1 kg CO2eq.
Phosphorus Fertilizer.........  15-30 lbs........  21-41 kg CO2eq....  5.4-21.4 lbs.....  13.5-64.8 kg CO2eq.
Potassium Fertilizer..........  0-10 lbs.........  0-9 kg CO2eq......  3.1-24.3 lbs.....  5.3-48.5 kg CO2eq.
Herbicide.....................  2.75-2.75 lbs....  79-79 kg CO2eq....  0.0-1.3 lbs......  2.4-69.6 kg CO2eq.
Pesticide.....................  0-0 lbs..........  0-0 kg CO2eq......  0.1-0.8 lbs......  12.4-50.2 kg CO2eq.
Diesel........................  3.5-3.5 gal......  107-107.1 kg CO2eq  3.8-8.9 gal......  227.9-622.3 kg CO2eq.
Gasoline......................  0-0 gal..........  0-0 kg CO2eq......  1.6-3.0 gal......  93-151.4 kg CO2eq
    Total.....................  .................  950-1426 kg CO2eq.  .................  961-1443 kg CO2eq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Potential Invasiveness
    Carinata is not listed on the Federal noxious weed list.\29\ In a 
USDA document listing state noxious-weed seed requirements, twenty 
states include restrictions for unspecified species of the Brassica 
genus, indicating limitations on the use of the plant. Although other 
species of Brassica are specified in some states, the carinata species 
is not explicitly identified.\30\ Regarding invasiveness, an evaluation 
of carinata in Canada by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels 
concluded that invasiveness potential is deemed to be low and not 
difficult to remedy, if remedy is needed.\31\ A weed risk assessment by 
USDA found that carinata poses a moderate weed risk potential and 
concluded that carinata should undergo further evaluation.\32\ Unlike 
some other biofuel feedstocks evaluated under the RFS program for 
invasiveness, USDA did not find strong evidence of carinata causing 
impacts in anthropogenic (e.g., cities, suburbs, roadways), production 
(e.g., agriculture, nurseries, forest plantations, orchards), or 
natural systems. However, there is a high level of uncertainty 
regarding carinata's spread and impact potential due to incomplete 
knowledge about its traits. This uncertainty raises concerns about the 
threat of invasiveness and may require remediation activities that 
would cause additional GHG emissions. Because carinata does not pose as 
great an invasiveness risk as Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum, 
EPA believes that monitoring and reporting requirements similar to 
those for Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum would be appropriate, 
but does not expect to apply all of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) 
requirements that exist for those feedstocks. We would expect to impose 
monitoring and reporting requirements similar to 40 CFR 80.1450 
(b)(1)(x)(A)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (v) and 80.1450 (b)(1)(x)(A)(3), 
(4), (5), and (7). In addition, a letter documenting the feedstock 
grower's compliance with all of the relevant federal, state, regional, 
and local requirements related to invasive species would be required. 
With these requirements in place, we would assume that there are no GHG 
emissions associated with potential invasiveness when carinata is used 
as a biofuel feedstock. EPA is taking comment on the invasiveness 
concerns of carinata and the appropriateness of the referenced 
requirements in mitigating those concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Based on communication with USDA, sulfur can also be a 
beneficial fertilizer component for oilseeds such as carinata and 
soybeans, dependent on local soil characteristics, at application 
rates of up to 10-20 lbs/acre. There are multiple options for sulfur 
application as part of a liquid or dry granular mixture that also 
contain phosphorous and nitrogen. The emissions for fertilizer rates 
provided in Table 3 capture the likely range of impacts associated 
with the variety of application options, including ones containing 
sulfur.
    \29\ USDA, Federal Noxious Weed List, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf.
    \30\ USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service State Noxious-Weed 
Seed Requirements Recognized in the Administration of the Federal 
Seed Act, 2014, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5090172.
    \31\ SCS Global Services, Certification Evaluation Report, 
Roundtable on Sustainable Biomass, http://rsb.org/pdfs/reports/RSB_PGF-Biofuel_SummaryRPT_InitialEvaluation111513.pdf.
    \32\ USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica carinata A. Braun 
(Brassicaceae) -Ethiopian mustard, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Crushing and Oil Extraction
    EPA evaluated the seed crushing and oil extraction process and 
compared the lifecycle GHG emissions from this stage for soybean oil 
and carinata oil. EPA assumed the processing of carinata would be 
similar to soybeans, canola, and camelina. Because carinata seeds 
produce more oil per pound than soybeans, the lifecycle GHG emissions 
associated with crushing and oil extraction are lower for carinata than 
soybeans per pound of feedstock oil produced.
    There is not a significant amount of industry data on energy used 
for crushing and oil extraction of carinata. Based on data provided in 
the petition submitted, and EPA's standard emissions factors for 
electricity and natural gas, we estimate that the GHG emissions from 
crushing and oil extraction are 92 kgCO2e/ton carinata oil. 
For comparison, in the analysis for the March 2010 final rule, the GHG 
emissions from crushing and oil extraction were estimated to be 426 
kgCO2e/ton soybean oil. As a conservative estimate, we 
propose to assume that the GHG emissions related to crushing and oil 
extraction are the same for carinata as for soybeans.
    Similar to soybeans, a press cake is also produced when carinata is 
crushed and the oil is extracted. Little is known at this time about 
the possible beneficial use of carinata cake. Carinata press cake 
contains glucosinolates, which may be toxic to animals in large 
concentrations.\33\ However, the heat produced from crushing carinata 
seeds

[[Page 23002]]

may reduce the toxicity of the press cake, or carinata press cake could 
be mixed in low amounts with other seed meal for use as animal 
feed.\34\ Alternatively, carinata press cake could be used as a 
biofumigant.\35\ In our modeling of soybean oil for the March 2010 RFS 
rule, the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models included the use of the soy meal 
(sometimes referred to as press cake) co-product as livestock feed. In 
our modeling, the use of soy meal as livestock feed displaced the need 
for other similar feed products and therefore impacted the relative 
prices and production of crop and livestock products. These crop and 
livestock impacts were reflected in the land use change, livestock, and 
agricultural sector GHG emissions impacts estimated for biofuels 
produced from soybean oil. Although EPA modeling results did not 
isolate the GHG impacts of the soy meal co-product, we believe that 
overall the soy meal co-product lowered the GHG emissions associated 
with soybean oil-based biofuels. Similarly, we believe that any use of 
the carinata press cake would provide an additional benefit (i.e., 
lower GHG emissions) not reflected in our lifecycle GHG emissions 
analysis of carinata oil. Based on our analysis of carinata oil, which 
does not consider use of the press cake, we have found that the 
agricultural, livestock, and land use change emissions associated with 
producing carinata oil are less than or equal to the corresponding 
emissions associated with producing soybean oil. Therefore, any 
beneficial use of the carinata press cake (e.g., as livestock feed or 
boiler fuel) would only serve to lower the GHG emissions associated 
with carinata oil relative to the corresponding emissions for soybean 
oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica carinata A. Braun 
(Brassicaceae)--Ethiopian mustard. 2014.
    \34\ Carinata meal (solvent extracted) is approved for feed use 
at quantities up to 10% of total diet dry matter in Canada by the 
Candian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Letter from W. Gwayumba, 
Ph.D. sent to EPA in email from Sandra Franco on July 9, 2014. The 
Brassica genus (not carinata explicitly) is approved by the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) with the Association of American Feed Control 
Officials (AAFCO) U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Memorandum of 
Understanding Between The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and The 
Association of American Feed Control Officials (MOU 225-07-7001) 
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/PartnershipsCollaborations/MemorandaofUnderstandingMOUs/DomesticMOUs/ucm115778.htm. It is 
important to note that all animal feed products must be approved by 
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be sold 
in the United States. Nothing in EPA's analysis should be construed 
as an official federal government position regarding the approval or 
disapproval of carinata press cake as an animal feed. Only FDA is 
authorized to make that determination.
    \35\ J. Brown and M.J. Morra, Glucosinolate-Containing Seed Meal 
as a Soil Amendment to Control Plant Pests. 2000-2002, National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-510-35254, at 15 (2005), 
available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan, 
C. Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G. Patalano, W. 
Parker (2010), The efficacy of biofumigant meals and plants to 
control wireworm populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245-
254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Feedstock Distribution

    EPA's assessment, based on the following reasoning, is that GHG 
emissions from feedstock distribution will be the same for carinata as 
such emissions for soybeans. Because carinata contains more oil per 
pound of seed, as discussed above, the energy needed to move the 
carinata before oil extraction would be lower than soybeans per gallon 
of oil produced. To the extent that carinata is grown on more disperse 
fallow land than soybeans and would need to be transported further, the 
energy needed to move the carinata could be higher than soybeans. 
Therefore, we believe we may assume for purposes of GHG emissions 
assessment that the GHG emissions associated with transporting carinata 
and soybeans to crushing facilities will be the same. Carinata and 
soybean oils are similar in terms of density and energy content; 
therefore, we also assumed that the GHG emissions from transporting the 
oil from a crushing facility to a biofuel production facility would be 
the same for the two different feedstocks.

C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG Emissions

    Compared to soybean oil, carinata oil has comparable GHG emissions 
per ton of oil from crop inputs and crushing and oil extraction, and 
lower GHG emissions per ton of oil from direct and indirect land use 
change. Carinata and soybean oils are also likely to have similar GHG 
emissions from feedstock distribution. Therefore, we believe that the 
feedstock production and transport portion of the lifecycle GHG 
emissions associated with carinata are likely to be similar to or less 
than the GHG emissions for the corresponding portion of the lifecycle 
analysis for soybean oil. EPA's purpose in evaluating petitions under 
40 CFR 80.1416 is not to prepare a precise lifecycle GHG emissions 
analysis of every fuel type, but to gather sufficient information on 
which to inform its decision of whether proposed biofuels qualify under 
the program in terms of lifecycle GHG emissions reduction. Based on our 
comparison of carinata oil to soybean oil, EPA proposes to use, in its 
future evaluations of petitions seeking to use carinata oil as a 
feedstock for biofuel production, an estimate of the GHG emissions 
associated with the cultivation and transport of carinata oil that is 
the same as that which we have used for soybean oil, on a per ton of 
oil basis. Although EPA could conduct a more detailed analysis, we do 
not belive it is necessary for purposes of the determinations EPA must 
make in responding to petitions. EPA solicits comment on this proposed 
approach.

D. Fuel Production and Distribution

    Carinata oil has physical properties that are similar to soybean 
and camelina oil, and is suitable for the same conversion processes as 
these feedstocks. 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 Notice, we will combine our 
evaluation of agricultural sector GHG emissions associated with the use 
of carinata oil feedstock with our evaluation of the GHG emissions 
associated with individual producers' production processes and finished 
fuels to determine whether the proposed pathways satisfy CAA lifecycle 
GHG emissions reduction requirements for RFS-qualifying renewable 
fuels. Based on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions 
attributable to the production and transport of carinata oil feedstock, 
EPA anticipates that fuel produced from carinata oil feedstock through 
the same transesterification or hydrotreating process technologies that 
EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from 
soybean oil and the March 2013 RFS rule for biofuel derived from 
camelina oil would qualify for biomass-based diesel (D-code 4) RINs or 
advanced (D-code 5) RINs.\36\ However, EPA will evaluate petitions for 
fuel produced from carinata oil feedstock on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The transesterification process that EPA evaluated for the 
March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil feedstock 
is described in section 2.4.7.3 (Biodiesel) of the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA-420-R-10-006). The 
hydrotreating process that EPA evaluated for the March 2013 rule for 
biofuel derived from camelina oil feedstock is described in section 
II.A.3.b of the March 2013 rule (78 FR 14190).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary

    EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions 
associated with the production and transport of carinata 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 carinata oil as a feedstock.

[[Page 23003]]

    Dated: April 17, 2015.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2015-09618 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P