[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 54 (Friday, March 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15002-15007]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06444]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0091; FRL-9924-65-OAR]

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Pennycress
(Thlaspi Arvense) Oil for Use in Biofuel Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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 Thlaspi arvense
(``pennycress'') 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 pennycress oil, and describes how
EPA may apply this analysis in the future to determine whether biofuels
produced from pennycress 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 pennycress 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 April 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0091, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Air and Radiation
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0091.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0091, 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-2015-0091. 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-
2015-0091. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Monger, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6406J, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-0628; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is organized as follows:

I. Introduction
II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Use of Pennycress Oil
as a Biofuel Feedstock
    A. Feedstock Production, Land Availability, and Projected
Volumes
    1. Background
    2. Volume Potential
    3. Indirect Impacts
    4. Crop Inputs
    5. Potential Invasiveness
    6. Crushing and Oil Extraction
    B. Feedstock Distribution
    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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 the subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis
includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle,

including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel
production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe
emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's
lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect
emissions, such as 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 Arvens
Technology, Inc., with contents claimed as confidential business
information (CBI), requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG
emissions for biofuels produced using Thlaspi arvense (``pennycress'')
oil, 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
pennycress when it is used as a biofuel feedstock, and is seeking
public comment on the methodology and results of this evaluation.
    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 pennycress 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 pennycress 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 Pennycress Oil as
a Biofuel Feedstock

    EPA has evaluated the lifecycle GHG impacts of using pennycress 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 \2\ (the ``March 2013 rule''). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 78 FR 14190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that new agricultural sector modeling is not needed to
evaluate the lifecycle GHG impacts of using pennycress 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
pennycress oil to soybean oil and camelina oil, and because pennycress
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 pennycress oil for use
as a biofuel feedstock. We have looked at every component of the
agricultural sector GHG emissions from pennycress 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 equal to the emissions from that component
of soybean oil production. Based on this analysis (described below), we
propose to evaluate the agricultural sector GHG emissions impacts of
using pennycress 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
    Pennycress is an oilseed crop of the flowering mustard plant family
Brassicaceae. Pennycress is native to Eurasia and has been in North
America for approximately 200 years. It is widespread throughout
temperate regions, and can grow in cropland, fallow land, and along
roadsides, among other places.\3\ It is a winter annual that flowers in
spring.\4\ The fertilized flowers produce seedpods, with each plant
producing up to 15,000 seeds. These seeds have a high oil content.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pennycress Resource Network, http://www.wiu.edu/pennycress/agronomics/. Accessed February 19, 2015.
    \4\ Fan, J. et al. (2013) ``A life cycle assessment of
pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.)--derived jet fuel and diesel.''
Biomass and Bioenergy, 55:87-100.
    \5\ Moser, B.R., et al. (2009) ``Production and evaluation of
biodiesel from field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) oil.'' Energy
and Fuels, 23:4149-4155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pennycress oil is not edible, and currently has no commercial
markets, but it has many potential uses. Pennycress oil has high
concentrations of erucic acid,\6\ which could make it useful for
industrial purposes such as lubricants and textiles softeners.\7\ In
addition, pennycress seed meal has been investigated for use as a
biofumigant.\8\ There is currently interest in developing pennycress
for use as a biofuel crop because it can be grown in the winter between
seasons for other major crops such as soybeans and corn, requires
little inputs, and has a high oil content.\9\ In addition, growing
pennycress can help preserve soil quality and water quality by reducing
runoff and erosion.\10\ Because of the interest in pennycress as a
biofuel crop, pennycress growth and fuel production are areas of active
research at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Western
Illinois University, and in private industry.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Moser, B.R., et al. (2009) ``Production and evaluation of
biodiesel from field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) oil.'' Energy
and Fuels, 23:4149-4155.
    \7\ USDA Economic Research Service, ``Crambe, industrial
rapeseed, and tung provide valuable oils,'' September 1996.
Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ersDownloadHandler.ashx?file=/media/933430/ius6c_002.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2014.
    \8\ Vaughn, S.F., et al. (2005) ``Biofumigant compounds released
by field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense) seedmeal.'' Journal of
Chemical Ecology, 31(1):167-177.
    \9\ Moser, B.R., et al. (2009) ``Production and evaluation of
biodiesel from field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) oil.'' Energy
and Fuels, 23:4149-4155.
    \10\ Christiansen, J. and C. Taylor, ``Cover crops improve soil
health, help farmers weather drought.'' USDA National Resources
Conservation Service. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/home/?cid=STELPRDB1083051. Accessed
January 26, 2015.
    \11\ Evangelista, R.L. et al. (2012) ``Extraction of pennycress
(Thlaspi arvense L.) seed oil by full pressing.'' Industrial Crops
and Products, 37:76-81; Moser, B.R. et al. (2009) ``Composition and
physical properties of cress (Lepidium sativum L.) and field
pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) oils.'' Industrial Crops and
Products 30:199-205; Moser, B.R., et al. (2009) ``Production and
evaluation of biodiesel from field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.)
oil.'' Energy and Fuels, 23:4149-4155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Volume Potential
    Based on information currently available, pennycress is expected to
be primarily planted in the U.S. as a rotation crop with corn and
soybeans,\12\ on acres that would otherwise remain fallow (see Table
1). Current research indicates that planting pennycress in

lieu of fallowing would not decrease the next soybean yield.\13\ Since
substituting fallow land with pennycress production would not typically
displace another crop, EPA does not believe new acres would need to be
brought into agricultural use to increase pennycress production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Moser, B.R., et al. (2009) ``Production and evaluation of
biodiesel from field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) oil.'' Energy
and Fuels, 23:4149-4155.
    \13\ Phippen, W.B. et al. (2010) ``Planting date, herbicide, and
soybean rotation studies with field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense
L.)'' Association for the Advancement of Industrial Crops Annual
Meeting, Fort Collins, CO. September 19-22, 2010. Poster. Available
at: http://www.wiu.edu/pennycress/current-experiments/Planting%20Date%202010.pdf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20MR15.005

    Pennycress is currently cultivated on approximately 1,000 acres of
land in the U.S., in Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, and Indiana.\14\ EPA
anticipates that these states are most likely to have large scale
increases in pennycress production in the short term, because
pennycress is already cultivated there. Also, these states have high
soybean acreage and the appropriate climate for pennycress to be
cultivated as a winter crop before soybean planting. Based on USDA data
on soybean acreage in 2014, pennycress could be cultivated on 31
million acres in these states.\15\ However, industry is also
considering cultivating pennycress in other Midwest corn-belt states,
and according to their estimates, 40 million acres could be
cultivated.\16\ Industry projects that by 2022, approximately 2 million
of these available acres will be used for pennycress production.\17\
Based on our calculations of the potential biodiesel production from
pennycress, as described below, we do not anticipate demand for
pennycress oil to be greater than can be satisfied by available fallow
acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Correspondence with Terry Isbell of USDA Agricultural
Research Service (ARS).
    \15\ 2014 soybean acreage from USDA, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000.
    \16\ Arvens Technology, Inc., ``About Pennycress.'' Available
at: http://arvenstech.com/about.html. Accessed February 23, 2015.
    \17\ Petition from Arvens Technology, Inc., June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Average yields of 1,000-2,000 pounds of pennycress seed per acre
have been achieved on test plots,\18\ and are in line with expected
yields of other oilseeds such as canola/rapeseed. Based on a mid-range
yield of 1,500 pounds per acre and current acreage (1,000 acres),
approximately 55,000 gallons of pennycress-based biodiesel could be
produced from existing pennycress acres (assuming 0.28 pounds of
pennycress oil can be extracted from a pound of seed, and 7.6 pounds of
oil produces 1 gallon of biodiesel).\19\ Yield improvements of
pennycress are expected to approach the yield growth rates of other
oilseed crops over the next decade, as experience with growing
pennycress improves cultivation practices and the application of
existing technologies are more widely adopted.\20\ Assuming a yield
growth rate of 2% per year, starting with a yield of 1,500 pounds per
acre, yields would be 1,800 pounds per acre by 2022. Based on this
yield and the industry's projection of 2 million acres of pennycress in
2022, approximately 133 million gallons (MG) of pennycress-based
biodiesel could be produced.\21\ If investment in new seed technology
allows yields to increase to levels projected by industry (4,000 pounds
per acre), significantly more pennycress-based renewable fuels could be
produced.\22\ For the purposes of this analysis, we took a conservative
approach in terms of lifecycle GHG impacts of crop production by
assuming the lower yield estimate of 1,800 pounds per acre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Isbell, T. and S. Chermak (2010). ``Thlaspi arvense
(Pennycress) germination, development and yield potential.''
Advancement of Industrial Crops Annual Meeting, Fort Collins, CO.
September 19-22, 2010. Abstract, p. 29. Available at: http://www.aaic.org/10program.htm.
    \19\ For biodiesel produced from soybean oil, 7.6 pounds of oil
are also needed for one gallon of biodiesel. According to the
petition, 0.28 lbs of pennycress oil can be extracted from a pound
of seed. A similar value of 0.29 lbs oil per pound of seed is used
by: Fan, J. et al. (2013) ``A life cycle assessment of pennycress
(Thlaspi arvense L.)--derived jet fuel and diesel.'' Biomass and
Bioenergy, 55:87-100.
    \20\ Correspondence with Terry Isbell of USDA ARS.
    \21\ Different amounts of feedstock oil are needed to produce a
gallon of different types of fuel (biodiesel, renewable diesel, and
renewable jet fuel). For simplicity, we only estimated the potential
biodiesel production here, which requires the least amount of
feedstock oil per gallon of fuel.
    \22\ Petition from Arvens Technology, Inc., June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Indirect Impacts
    Unlike commodity crops that are tracked by USDA, pennycress does
not have a well-established, internationally traded market that would
be significantly affected by an increase in pennycress-based biofuels.
Based on information provided in the petition itself, from USDA, and in
the scientific literature, returns on pennycress are expected to be
approximately $120 per acre, given average yields of 1,800 pounds per
acre and a contract price of $0.15 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.\23\ Over time,
advancements in seed technology, improvements in planting and
harvesting techniques, and changes in input usage could significantly
increase future pennycress yields and returns, but it is unlikely the
returns to farmers from pennycress will ever compete with the returns
from corn, soybeans or other widely traded commodity crops. In
addition, because pennycress 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 soybeans, production of pennycress-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ USDA Economic Research Service, Commodity Costs and
Returns. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx. Accessed June 12, 2014.

          Table 2--Pennycress Costs and Returns, Per Acre \20\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2022 Pennycress (1,800 lbs/acre)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Inputs
Seed:
    Pennycress seed (cost: $1/lb)...  $13.00 (13 lbs/ac).
Fertilizer:
    Nitrogen Fertilizer (cost: $1/    $50.00.
     lb).
    Phosphate Fertilizer (cost: $1/   $20.00.
     lb).
    Potassium Fertilizer (cost: $1/   $20.00.
     lb).
        Sub-Total...................  $103.00.
Logistics:
    Planting Trip...................  $10.00.
    Harvest & Hauling...............  $36.00.
                                     -----------------------------------
        Total Cost..................  $149.00.
Yields (lbs/acre)...................  1,800.
Price (per lb)......................  $0.15.
Total Revenue.......................  $270.00.
Returns.............................  $121.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \24\ Based on information from Arvens Technology, Inc., USDA,
scientific literature, and EPA calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we expect most pennycress used as a renewable fuel
feedstock for the RFS program would be grown in the U.S. and Canada, we
expect that pennycress 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.
4. Crop Inputs
    As part of our analysis of the GHG impacts from growing pennycress,
we compared crop inputs for pennycress to those for soybeans. Inputs
compared include nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus fertilizer, potassium
fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, diesel, and gasoline.\25\ We also
looked at the N2O emissions from both the nitrogen
fertilizer inputs and the crop residues associated with pennycress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Diesel and gasoline are used for planting and harvesting
pennycress. These values assume that no irrigation is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Current literature suggests that only minimal fertilizer inputs are
needed to grow pennycress.\26\ Information from USDA and other sources
suggests that approximately 50 lbs per acre nitrogen fertilizer may be
required for successful pennycress cultivation, although information
from the petitioner indicates that no additional nitrogen fertilizer
would be needed.\27\ Some current trials have not required the addition
of phosphorus or potassium fertilizer since these nutrients have been
available in the soil after corn plantings.\28\ However, it is possible
that when pennycress is produced at a commercial scale, some amount of
phosphorus and potassium might be added to replace the phosphorus or
potassium that is removed from the soil. Therefore, Table 3 shows a
range of potential input assumptions for pennycress production,\29\
compared to the 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 pennycress, we used projected
2022 yields of 1,800 lbs of seed per acre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Moser, B.R., et al. (2009) ``Production and evaluation of
biodiesel from field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) oil.'' Energy
and Fuels, 23:4149-4155.
    \27\ 50 lb N/acre from: Rukavina, H. et al. (2011) ``The effect
of nitrogen rate on field pennycress seed yield and oil content.''
Association for the Advancement of Industrial Crops 23rd Annual
Meeting, Fargo, ND. September 11-14, 2011. Poster. Available at:
http://www.wiu.edu/pennycress/current-experiments/Nitrogen%202011.pdf.
    \28\ Correspondence with Win Phippin, Western Illinois
University.
    \29\ Arvens Technology, Inc.; Correspondence with USDA. For more
information, see ``Pennycress data and calculations--for docket'' on
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pennycress 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, pennycress seeds can contain up to 34% oil, and mechanical
crushing extracts approximately 28% oil.\30\ The difference in oil
yield was taken into account when calculating the emissions per ton of
feedstock oil included in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, GHG emissions
associated with agricultural inputs for pennycress and soybeans are
similar when factoring in variations in oil yields per acre and
fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, and petroleum use.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Petition from Arvens Technology, Inc., June 2012. A similar
value of 0.29 lbs oil per pound of seed is used by: Fan, J. et al.
(2013) ``A life cycle assessment of pennycress (Thlaspi arvense
L.)--derived jet fuel and diesel.'' Biomass and Bioenergy, 55:87-
100.
    \31\ For more details on the greenhouse gas emissions associated
with agricultural inputs, see ``Pennycress data and calculations--
for docket'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0091.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20MR15.006

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

    \32\ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
equations for N2O emissions were updated since our
earlier analysis of soybeans. We use the updated equations here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Potential Invasiveness
    Pennycress has naturalized in all of the continental United
States,\33\ and is not listed on the federal noxious weed list.\34\
However, nine states currently have pennycress listed on a restricted
weed list, indicating limitations on the use of the plant in those
states.\35\ A weed risk assessment by USDA found that pennycress has a
high risk of invasiveness, and a high probability of impacting
production systems such as agriculture, nurseries, forest plantations,
and orchards.\36\ However, unlike some other biofuel feedstocks
evaluated under the RFS program for invasiveness, USDA found no
evidence of pennycress causing impacts in natural systems or
anthropogenic systems such as cities, suburbs, or roadways. Based on
the potential risk to production systems, and in consultation with
USDA, the use of pennycress as a biofuel feedstock raises concerns
about its threat of invasiveness and whether its production could
require remediation activities that would cause additional GHG
emissions. Therefore, similar to EPA's actions with respect to other
biofuel feedstocks found to present invasiveness risks, EPA anticipates
that any petition approvals for renewable fuel pathways involving the
use of pennycress oil as feedstock will include requirements associated
with mitigating risks associated with invasiveness. Because pennycress
does not pose as great an invasiveness risk as Arundo donax or
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 pennycress is used as a biofuel feedstock. EPA is taking comment
on the invasiveness concerns of pennycress and the appropriateness of
the referenced requirements in mitigating those concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. ``Weed
risk assessment for Thlaspi arvense L. (Brassicaceae)--Field
pennycress,'' [Forthcoming].
    \34\ USDA (2014). ``Federal Noxious Weed List.'' Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf.
    \35\ USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (2014). ``State
Noxious-Weed Seed Requirements Recognized in the Administration of
the Federal Seed Act.'' Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5090172. Producers interested in
growing pennycress in these states should consult with the
appropriate federal, state, and local authorities.
    \36\ USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. ``Weed
risk assessment for Thlaspi arvense L. (Brassicaceae)--Field
pennycress,'' [Forthcoming]. Traits that contributed to this result
are that pennycress is a prolific seed producer, forms a persistent
seed bank, can cause yield losses of field crops, and is poisonous
to livestock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 pennycress oil. EPA assumed the processing of pennycress would be
similar to soybeans, canola, and camelina. Because pennycress seeds
produce more oil per pound than soybeans, the GHG emissions associated
with crushing and oil extraction are lower for pennycress 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 pennycress. 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 80 kgCO2e/ton pennycress oil. For
comparison, in the analysis for the March 2010 final rule, the
lifecycle 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 pennycress as for soybeans.
    Similar to soybeans, a press cake is also produced when pennycress
is crushed and the oil is extracted. 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 the 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 did not
conduct modeling to 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 pennycress press cake would provide an
additional benefit (i.e., lower GHG emissions) not reflected in our
lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of pennycress oil. Little is known at
this time about the possible beneficial use of pennycress press cake.
Pennycress press

cake contains glucosinolates, which may be toxic to animals in large
concentrations.\37\ However, the heat produced from crushing pennycress
seeds may reduce the toxicity of the press cake,\38\ or pennycress
press cake could be mixed in low amounts with other seed meal for use
as animal feed.\39\ Alternatively, pennycress press cake could be used
as a biofumigant.\40\ Based on our analysis of pennycress 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 pennycress oil are less than or equal to the corresponding
emissions associated with producing soybean oil. Therefore, any
beneficial use of the pennycress press cake (e.g., as livestock feed or
boiler fuel) would only serve to make the GHG emissions associated with
pennycress oil even lower than the corresponding emissions for soybean
oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Moser, B.R. (2012) ``Biodiesel from alternative oilseed
feedstock: camelina and field pennycress.'' Biofuels, 3:193-209.
    \38\ Fan, J. et al. (2013) ``A life cycle assessment of
pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.)--derived jet fuel and diesel.''
Biomass and Bioenergy, 55:87-100.
    \39\ Moser, B.R. (2012) ``Biodiesel from alternative oilseed
feedstock: camelina and field pennycress.'' Biofuels, 3:193-209. 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 pennycress press cake as an animal feed.
Only FDA is authorized to make that determination.
    \40\ Vaughn, S.F., et al. (2005) ``Biofumigant compounds
released by field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense) seedmeal.'' Journal
of Chemical Ecology, 31(1):167-177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Feedstock Distribution

    EPA's assessment, based on the following reasoning, is that GHG
emissions from feedstock distribution will be the same for pennycress
as such emissions for soybeans. Because pennycress contains more oil
per pound of seed, as discussed above, the energy needed to move the
pennycress before oil extraction would be lower than soybeans per ton
of oil produced. To the extent that pennycress is grown on more
disperse fallow land than soybeans and would need to be transported
further, the energy needed to move the pennycress could be higher than
soybeans. Therefore, we believe we may assume for purposes of GHG
emissions assessment that the GHG emissions associated with
transporting pennycress and soybeans to crushing facilities will be the
same. Pennycress and soybean oils are quite 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, pennycress oil has less than or equal GHG
emissions per ton of oil from crop inputs, crushing and oil extraction,
and direct and indirect land use change. Pennycress 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
pennycress 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
pennycress oil to soybean oil, EPA proposes to use, in its future
evaluations of petitions proposing to use pennycress oil as a feedstock
for biofuel production, an estimate of the GHG emissions associated
with the cultivation and transport of pennycress 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 precise analysis, we do not believe
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

    Pennycress 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 pennycress 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 pennycress oil
feedstock, EPA anticipates that fuel produced from pennycress 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.\41\ However, EPA will
evaluate petitions for fuel produced from pennycress oil feedstock on a
case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The transesterification process that EPA evaluated for the
March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil feedstock
is described in section <IP_ADDRESS> (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 pennycress 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 pennycress oil as a feedstock.

    Dated: March 12, 2015.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2015-06444 Filed 3-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 218)]
[Notices]
[Page 63945-63946]
[DOCID:fr13no07-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56742; File No. SR-FINRA-2007-008]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Definition of Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction in NASD Rule
3010(g)(1) To Exempt Locations That Solely Conduct Final Approval of
Research Reports

November 5, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On August 30, 2007, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/a the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the definition of Office of Supervisory
Jurisdiction (``OSJ'') in NASD Rule 3010(g)(1) to exempt locations that
solely conduct final approval of research reports. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 5,
2007.\3\ The Commission received two comment letters in support of the
proposal.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(l).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56585 (October 1,
2007), 72 FR 57081.
    \4\ See letters to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, from
Marian H. Desilets, President, Association of Registration
Management, Inc., dated October 25, 2007, and Jill Ostergaard and
Christopher Mahon, Co-Chairs, Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association Self Regulation and Supervisory Practices
Committee, dated October 30, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NASD Rule 3010(g)(1) currently defines OSJ to mean any office of a
member at which any one or more of the following functions takes place:
(a) Order execution and/or market making; (b) structuring of public
offerings or private placements; (c) maintaining custody of customers'
funds and/or securities; (d) final acceptance (approval) of new
accounts on behalf of the member; (e) review and endorsement of
customer orders, pursuant to paragraph (d) above; (f) final approval of
advertising or sales literature for use by persons associated with the
member, pursuant to NASD Rule 2210(b)(1); or (g) responsibility for
supervising the activities of persons associated with the member at one
or more other branch offices of the member.
    In July 2006, amendments to the branch office definition under NASD
Rule 3010(g)(2) went into effect (``Uniform Branch Office
Definition'').\5\ The Uniform Branch Office Definition was developed
collectively by FINRA (then known as NASD), the New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE'') and the North American Securities Administrators
Association to establish a national standard. In conjunction with the
new Uniform Branch Office Definition, a Form BR was introduced to
provide a more efficient, standardized method for members to register
branch office locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52403 (September 9,
2005), 70 FR 54782 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-104) (order
approving Uniform Branch Office Definition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although FINRA and NYSE sought to adopt consistent interpretations
of the new Uniform Branch Office Definition, there were nevertheless
different classifications of a location where final approval of
research reports by a principal occurs. Under NASD's current rules,
final review of advertising or sales literature (which includes
research reports) makes a location an OSJ, and therefore a branch
office. NYSE's rules, however, do not include an OSJ definition,\6\ and
NYSE stated in an Information Memo that it deems a location where a
member stations a qualified supervisory analyst solely to review
research reports as a ``non-sales location,'' which is an express
exclusion from the Uniform Branch Office Definition.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Rule 342 (Offices--Approval, Supervision and
Control), which contains the Uniform Branch Office Definition.
    \7\ See NYSE Information Memo 06-13 (March 22, 2006) (Joint
Interpretive Guidance from NYSE and NASD Relating to the Uniform
Branch Office Definition, Question and Answer 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to this inconsistency, NASD published Notice to Members 07-12
in February 2007 seeking comment on a rule harmonization proposal to
eliminate the definition of OSJ from the NASD manual. After reviewing
the twenty comments received on the original proposal set forth in its
Notice to Members 07-12, FINRA determined not to move forward with the
broad proposal to eliminate the definition of OSJ and adopt new
classifications for office locations. Instead, consistent with many of
its commenters' recommendation, FINRA proposed to amend the definition
of OSJ in the NASD rules to exclude locations that solely conduct final
approval of research reports, thereby enabling

FINRA to deem such locations to be ``non-sales locations.''

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\8\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will resolve
the conflicting provisions in NASD and NYSE rules over the
classification of locations that solely conduct final approval of
research reports, and promote greater consistency in the application of
the Uniform Branch Office Definition. The Commission also believes that
providing an exemption from the definition of OSJs to such locations
will reduce regulatory inefficiencies and eliminate unnecessary costs
to member firms.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2007-008), be, and
hereby is, approved. FINRA will announce the effective date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 60 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be
the date of publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22064 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:OSHA held a public meeting about this proposed rule on January 9-10, 2014. The attached files are the transcripts of the public meeting.