[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61406-61419]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26039]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293; FRL-9935-46-OAR]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment
on its analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the
production and transport of Jatropha curcas (``jatropha'') oil
feedstock for use in making biofuels such as biodiesel, renewable
diesel, jet fuel, naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas. This notice
explains EPA's analysis of the production and transport components of
the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of biofuel made from jatropha
oil, and describes how EPA may apply this analysis in the future to
determine whether such biofuels meet the necessary greenhouse gas
reductions required for qualification as renewable fuel under the
Renewable Fuel Standard program. Based on this analysis, we anticipate
that biofuels produced from jatropha oil could qualify as biomass-based
diesel or advanced biofuel if typical fuel production process
technologies or process technologies with the same or lower GHG
emissions are used.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0293 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Ramig, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division,
Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.

     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    This notice is organized as follows:

I. General Information
II. Introduction
III. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With Use of
Jatropha Oil as a Biofuel Feedstock
    A. Summary of Greenhouse Gas Analysis
    B. Feedstock Description and Growing Conditions
    C. Cultivation and Harvesting
    D. Land Use Change and Agricultural Sector Emissions
    E. Feedstock Transport and Processing
    F. Potential Invasiveness
    G. Summary of GHG Emissions From Jatropha Oil Production and
Transport
    H. Fuel Production and Distribution
IV. Summary

II. Introduction

    As part of changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program
regulations published on March 26, 2010 \1\ (the ``March 2010 RFS
rule''), EPA specified the types of renewable fuels eligible to
participate in the RFS program through approved fuel pathways. Table 1
to 40 CFR 80.1426 of the RFS regulations lists three critical
components of an approved fuel pathway: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock;
and (3) production process. Fuel produced pursuant to each specific
combination of the three components, or fuel pathway, is designated in
the Table as eligible to qualify as renewable fuel. EPA may also
approve additional fuel pathways not currently listed in Table 1 to 40
CFR 80.1426 for participation in the RFS program, including in response
to a petition filed pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by a biofuel producer
seeking EPA evaluation of a new fuel pathway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall greenhouse
gas (GHG) impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and
use. The results of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the
weight of available evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel
meets the necessary greenhouse gas reductions required under the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of the
subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of
emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock
production, feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel
transportation and distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA
definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also
include an assessment of significant indirect emissions such as
emissions from land use changes, agricultural sector impacts, and
production of co-products from biofuel production.
    EPA received a petition submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 from
Global Clean Energy Holdings (``GCEH'' or the ``GCEH petition'') and
Emerald Biofuels, LLC, submitted under a claim of confidential business
information (CBI), requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG
emissions for biofuels (biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel and
naphtha) produced from the oil extracted from Jatropha curcas
(hereafter referred to as ``jatropha'' or ``jatropha oil''). The
petition also requested EPA provide a determination of the renewable
fuel categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be eligible under
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The Agency also received a
separate petition from Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc.,
submitted under a claim of CBI, requesting that EPA evaluate the
lifecycle GHG emissions for the use of neat jatropha oil as a
transportation fuel, and that EPA provide a determination of the
renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such neat jatropha oil
fuel may be eligible.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There are no further references in this Notice to Plant Oil
Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc., as they did not agree to waive
CBI claims to the data/information contained in their petition and
supporting documentation submitted to EPA pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416, or references thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has conducted an evaluation of the GHG emissions associated
with the production and transport of jatropha oil when it is used as a
biofuel feedstock, and is seeking public comment on the methodology and
results of this evaluation. In this document, we are describing EPA's
evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with the feedstock
production and feedstock transport stages of the lifecycle analysis of
jatropha oil when it is used to produce a biofuel, including the
indirect agricultural and forestry sector impacts. We are seeking
public comment on the methodology and results of this evaluation. For
the reasons described in Section III below, we believe that it is
reasonable to apply the GHG emissions estimates we established in the
March 2010 rule for the production and transport of soybean oil to the
production and transport of jatropha oil.
    If appropriate, EPA will update its evaluation of the feedstock
production and transport phases of the lifecycle analysis for jatropha
oil based on comments received in response to this action. EPA will
then use this feedstock production and transport information to
evaluate facility-specific petitions, received pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416, that propose to use jatropha oil as a feedstock for the
production of biofuel. In evaluating such petitions, EPA will consider
the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of
jatropha oil feedstock. In addition, EPA will determine--based on
information in the petition and other relevant information, including
the petitioner's energy and mass balance data--the GHG emissions
associated with petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as
emissions associated with the transport and use of the finished
biofuel. We will then combine our assessments into a full lifecycle GHG
analysis and determine whether the fuel produced at an individual
facility satisfies CAA renewable fuel GHG reduction requirements.

III. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With Use of
Jatropha Oil as a Biofuel Feedstock

    EPA has evaluated the GHG emissions associated with the production
and transport of jatropha oil for use as a biofuel feedstock, based on
information provided in the GCEH petition and other data gathered by
EPA. Section III-A includes an overview of our GHG analysis of jatropha
oil production and transport. Section III-B describes jatropha oil and
available information about the growing conditions suitable for
commercial-scale production. Section III-C explains our analysis of the
GHG emissions attributable to growing and harvesting jatropha seeds.
Section III-D describes our analysis of the land use change and other
agricultural sector emissions, including significant indirect
emissions, attributable to producing jatropha oil for use as a biofuel
feedstock. Section III-E explains our assessment of the GHG emissions
associated with feedstock transport and processing, including oil
extraction and pre-treatment. Section III-F discusses the potential
invasiveness of jatropha. Section III-G summarizes GHG emissions from
jatropha oil production and transport. Section III-H discusses how EPA
intends to consider the GHG emissions associated with fuel production
and

distribution when evaluating facility-specific petitions from biofuel
producers seeking to generate renewable identification numbers (RINs)
for non-grandfathered volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil.
    This Notice explains and seeks comment on each component of EPA's
GHG assessment of jatropha oil production and transportation. We also
discuss and seek comment on potential invasiveness concerns for
jatropha as they relate to GHG emissions. In this Notice we compare our
assessment of jatropha oil to our previous evaluation of soybean oil
for the March 2010 RFS rule because jatropha oil and soybean oil can be
used in the same types of production processes to produce biodiesel,
renewable diesel, jet fuel, and other similar types of biofuels. In the
March 2010 RFS rule, EPA determined that several renewable fuel
pathways using soybean oil feedstock meet the required 50% lifecycle
GHG reduction threshold under the RFS for biomass-based diesel and
advanced biofuel.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These pathways included biodiesel produced from soybean oil
through a transesterification production process, and renewable
diesel, jet fuel and heating oil produced from soybean oil through a
hydrotreating production process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Summary of Greenhouse Gas Analysis

    Based on the limited data available on where jatropha will be
produced at commercial scale for use in making biofuels for the RFS
program, we evaluated a number of scenarios with different assumptions
about where jatropha will be grown and what type of land jatropha
plantations will use. This section briefly discusses the two main
scenarios that we evaluated and our overall findings based on these
analyses.
    As explained in more detail in Section III-B below, based on
information in the GCEH petition and other data gathered by EPA through
literature review and expert consultations, we believe that southern
Mexico (specifically the states of Yucatan, Oaxaca and Chiapas) and
northeastern Brazil \4\ are the likely locations for commercial-scale
production of jatropha for use in making biofuels for the RFS program.
Given the limited amount of available data, these are the two countries
where we found reliable evidence on jatropha production that could
supply significant volumes of qualifying biofuel feedstock under the
RFS program. In the first scenario that we evaluated, we assume that
jatropha production will occur on grassland in southern Mexico and
northeastern Brazil that is not currently being used for crop
production or pasture use. As explained more below, we estimate that on
average the GHG emissions attributable to jatropha oil extracted from
jatropha seeds grown on unused grasslands in southern Mexico are 951
kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (kgCO2e)
per tonne of jatropha oil that has been harvested, extracted, pre-
treated to lower acidity and delivered to a biofuel producer
(``delivered jatropha oil''), compared to 1,425 kgCO2e per
tonne of delivered soybean oil. If jatropha is grown on grassland in
northeastern Brazil that would not otherwise have been used for crop
production or grazing, we estimate that the GHG emissions would be
1,858 kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil. Land use
change emissions are higher in northeastern Brazil than in Mexico
because, on average, grasslands in northeastern Brazil sequester
significantly more carbon than grasslands in southern Mexico.\5\ Since
we think it is likely that jatropha will be grown in both locations, we
believe it is appropriate to evaluate a scenario in which we assume an
equal amount of growth on grasslands in southern Mexico and
northeastern Brazil. In this scenario, the GHG emissions are 1,404
kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil, which is lower
than the emissions attributable to delivered soybean oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically the regions of Brazil that encompasses the
following provinces: Alagoas, Bahia, Ceara, Maranhao, Paraiba,
Pernambuco, Piaui, Rio Grande do Norte, Sergipe, Tocantins.
    \5\ Based on our assessment of land use change emissions factors
for previous RFS rules, on average grasslands in Mexico sequester
approximately 15 tonnes CO2e per hectare compared to 40
tonnes CO2e per hectare in northeastern Brazil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a second scenario, we considered the possibility that jatropha
will be grown on land that would have otherwise been used for
agriculture (crop production or grazing/pasture). For this analysis we
used the Food and Agricultural Policy and Research Institute
international models as maintained by the Center for Agricultural and
Rural Development at Iowa State University (the FAPRI-CARD model),\6\
that has been used for a number of previous RFS rulemakings, including
the March 2010 RFS rule. We conducted two analyses within this
scenario: One where we assumed that jatropha will displace crops
(predominantly corn) in Mexico, and one where jatropha is grown on
cropland in Mexico and on agricultural land in Brazil (with the model
choosing what land to displace in Brazil). The second scenario, where
jatropha is grown on land otherwise used for agricultural production,
evaluates the impacts associated with jatropha displacing crop and
pasture land, including evaluating whether and where increased crop
production or pasturage would occur in other regions to compensate for
the jatropha displacement. In both of these analyses the GHG emissions
attributable to the production of jatropha oil are much lower than the
corresponding emissions for soybean oil. Specifically, for the Mexico
cropland analysis we estimated GHG emissions of negative 721
kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil. As explained
more below, the net GHG emissions in this analysis are negative
primarily because jatropha sequesters more carbon than the cropland it
displaces and the indirect emissions are relatively small because the
displaced corn production is backfilled by higher yield producers
(e.g., corn production in the United States). For the Mexico and Brazil
analysis, the net GHG emissions are 128 kgCO2e per tonne of
delivered jatropha oil, which is also significantly less than the
emissions per tonne of delivered soybean oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information on the FAPRI-CARD model see the March
2010 RFS rule and associated Regulatory Impact Analysis: Renewable
Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-
10-006. http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the two scenarios described above, we believe it is
reasonable, as a conservative approach, to apply the GHG emissions
estimates we established in the March 2010 rule for the production and
transport of soybean oil to jatropha oil when evaluating future
facility-specific petitions from biofuel producers seeking to generate
RINs for volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil.\7\ The
following sections and supporting documentation in the public docket
provides more details on the scenarios and analyses described

above. We welcome public comments on all aspects of our assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The purpose of lifecycle assessment under the RFS program is
not to precisely estimate lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
particular biofuels, but instead to determine whether or not the
fuels satisfy specified lifecycle GHG emissions thresholds to
qualify as one or more of the four types of renewable fuel specified
in the statute. If the record demonstrates that the GHG emissions
associated with the use of jatropha oil are at least as low as those
of soybean oil (which meets the most stringent, 50%, lifecycle GHG
reduction threshold specified for non-cellulosic feedstocks) then
EPA can conclude that where comparable biofuel production methods
are used that jatropha oil-based biofuels will qualify in the same
manner as soybean oil-based biofuels. In some cases, as here, this
comparative approach simplifies EPA's assessment, and allows
relevant conclusions to be drawn despite uncertainty that may be
associated with an attempt to determine a more precise lifecycle GHG
assessment. Similarly, where there are a range of possible outcomes
and the fuel satisfies GHG reduction requirements for the optimum
RFS renewable fuel qualification when ``conservative'' assumptions
are used, then a more precise quantification of the matter is not
required for purposes of a pathway determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Feedstock Description and Growing Conditions

    Jatropha is a deciduous, perennial shrub or tree species belonging
to the Euphorbiaceae family that grows approximately 8 to 15 meters
tall. Experts agree that jatropha is native to the American tropics;
however there is disagreement in the literature regarding its origin
and the borders of jatropha's native range.\8\ However, it is
naturalized throughout Latin America, including Mexico, Central America
and the Caribbean, and to a lesser extent in Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela.\9\
Traditionally, it has been grown in tropical and sub-tropical regions
in Africa, Asia and Latin America as a hedge and ornamental plant.
Jatropha is adapted to arid and semi-arid conditions and high
temperatures, and it has been found to be very frost intolerant. In its
Latin American range, it is common in deciduous forests and open spaces
including grassland-savannah and scrub forests. It prefers low
altitudes, well drained soils and good aeration. It is adapted to
marginal lands with low nutrient content, but commercial production has
been unsuccessful in these conditions. Jatropha fruit, similar in
appearance to a walnut, can be harvested at least once per year, though
multiple harvests are possible as mature jatropha plants flower
throughout the year. The fruit has a thick outer covering called a
husk. Each fruit contains one to three seeds, each with a durable outer
shell and a softer oil-bearing inner kernel. The seeds are 25-50
percent oil by mass. When oil is extracted from the kernel the
remaining material forms a seedcake (also known as press cake or meal
cake) that contains curcin, a highly toxic protein. Although the oil
and seedcake are toxic to humans and livestock, the oil has good
properties for use as a biofuel feedstock to produce fuels such as
biodiesel, renewable diesel and jet fuel, and the seedcake can be used
as fertilizer or as fuel for process heat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CABI Jatropha Curcas Data Sheet, http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28393
    \9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jatropha does not have a long history as a planted crop. As a
result, empirical data on crop yields, crop inputs, and other key
agricultural characteristics are not readily available. In order to
fill these knowledge gaps to the greatest extent possible, EPA
conducted a literature review of agronomic and lifecycle GHG analysis
studies of jatropha.\10\ We sought input on a draft of the literature
review from a wide array of stakeholders, including academics,
environmental organizations, industry groups and the parties who
submitted petitions involving the use of jatropha oil feedstock. The
comments we received were considered in preparing the revised document
available in the public docket associated with this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production:
Literature Review and Synthesis'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several past efforts to cultivate jatropha for biofuel use
attempted, without commercial success, to produce jatropha on marginal
agricultural land with minimal inputs.\11\ By contrast, the petitioners
and others working to commercialize jatropha more recently have
utilized higher quality agricultural land and have made much more
extensive use of fertilizer, irrigation, and other agricultural inputs.
Therefore, for purposes of this assessment, we assume that jatropha
grown for use as a biofuel feedstock will be grown as a planted crop
under normal agricultural conditions. In other words, we expect
jatropha to be grown by farmers on arable land with the use of
fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation where necessary, and other crop
inputs. Our projection that jatropha grown for biofuel feedstock
targeted to the U.S. market will be cultivated on agricultural-quality
land also aligns with the definition of renewable biomass at 40 CFR
80.1401, which specifies that planted crops must be grown on existing
agricultural land cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Kant, P. and S. Wu. 2011. ``The Extraordinary Collapse of
Jatropha as a Global Biofuel.'' Environmental Science & Technology
45(17):7114-7115. doi: 10.1021/es201943v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on conversations with researchers at the United States
Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and
other organizations, we determined that jatropha is unlikely to be
commercially grown in the United States because of its high intolerance
to frost.\12\ USDA and several university research groups have
attempted to grow jatropha in the United States, including projects in
Arizona, California, and Florida. To date, no one has demonstrated that
jatropha would be a viable commercial-scale crop in the United States
due primarily to its extreme frost intolerance.\13\ Even in the
southernmost reaches of the country, occasional frosts have proven too
severe for the plant to be viable. For these reasons, EPA's analysis
does not consider jatropha production in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Telephone conversations with Terry Coffelt (USDA-ARS),
Terry Isbell (USDA-ARS), Roy Scott (USDA-ARS), Dan Parfitt
(University of California-Davis), Wagner Vendrame (University of
Florida), Jaime Barton (Hawaii Agricultural Research Center), Bob
Osgood (HARC), Richard Oguchi (University of Hawaii), Robert Bailis
(Yale).
    \13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Projecting where jatropha will be produced is difficult, as
evidenced by previous government projects to support the expansion of
jatropha production that did not materialize.\14\ Given the poor track
record of pronouncements about future jatropha development, we focused
our analysis on regions where we could find evidence of current
production at commercial scale. Through literature review and
conversations with researchers and industry experts, we found evidence
of significant commercial jatropha production in Mexico and Brazil. In
contrast, although large areas of Asian jatropha production were
planned and reported in global surveys, EPA was not able to verify the
existence of successful commercial scale plantations in these regions.
While there is potential for jatropha cultivation in India and Africa,
it remains uncertain whether jatropha oil grown in those locations
would be exported to the United States or whether it would qualify as
renewable biomass as defined in the CAA and implementing RFS
regulations.\15\ The scenarios we evaluated looked only at jatropha
production in Mexico and Brazil, because, as discussed in more detail
below, these are the two countries where we found reliable evidence on
jatropha production that could supply significant volumes of qualifying
biofuel feedstock under the RFS program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production:
Literature Review and Synthesis'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.
    \15\ For example, recent trade data shows that in general the
U.S. receives substantially more agricultural imports from Mexico
and Brazil than from Africa and India. For example, in Fiscal Year
2014, the U.S. imported over 22.5 billion dollars of agricultural
products from Mexico and Brazil, compared to approximately 5.7
billion dollars from Africa and India. Source: USDA Economic
Research Service and Foreign Agricultural Service. 2015. Outlook for
U.S. Agricultural Trade, AES-89, August 27, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mexico and Brazil offer hospitable environments for jatropha. Both
countries are part of jatropha's naturalized range, and several efforts
to commercialize jatropha have been reported there.\16\ In the GEXSI
jatropha market survey of Latin America, Mexico and Brazil were the
only countries classified as having ``strong commercial

activities.'' \17\ The global survey completed by Leuphana in 2012 also
identified Mexico and Brazil as the dominant jatropha producers in
Latin America with area planted of 8,000 and 3,100 hectares
respectively.\18\ These survey results are supported by other studies
in the literature and information gathered by EPA.\19\ According to the
GCEH petition, GCEH recently established a jatropha plantation in the
Yucatan Peninsula encompassing several thousand hectares, with plans
for expansion in the same region. Furthermore, the Mexican government
has supported jatropha through the ProArbol program of the National
Forestry Commission of Mexico (CONAFOR) that provides subsidies for the
promotion of jatropha as a form of reforestation.\20\ Bailis and Baka,
for their study on using jatropha oil to produce jet fuel, focused on
Brazil because its position as a major biofuel and commercial
agricultural exporter makes it a potential site for large-scale
jatropha production.\21\ As another reason for focusing on Brazil as a
growth region for jatropha, Bailis and Baka cited the major push by
EMBRAPA, the federal agricultural research and support organization, to
develop the crop. Furthermore, our literature review identified
additional studies that reported commercial scale jatropha production
in Mexico and Brazil.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ CABI Jatropha Curcas Data Sheet, http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/28393
    \17\ The Global Exchange for Social Investment (GEXSI). 2008.
Global Market Study on Jatropha. Final report. Available at: http://www.jatropha-alliance.org/fileadmin/documents/GEXSI_Global-Jatropha-Study_FULL-REPORT.pdf.
    \18\ Wahl et al. 2012. Insights into Jatropha Projects
Worldwide. Leuphana University.
    \19\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production:
Literature Review and Synthesis'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.
    \20\ Skutsch, M., E. de los Rios, S. Solis, E. Riegelhaupt, D.
Hinojosa, S. Gerfert, Y. Gao, and O. Masera. 2011. ``Jatropha in
Mexico: Environmental and Social Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel
Program.'' Ecology and Society 16(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-04448-
160411.
    \21\ Bailis, R.E. and J.E. Baka. 2010. ``Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Land Use Change from Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in
Brazil.'' Environmental Science & Technology 44(22):8684-8691.
doi:10.1021/es1019178.
    \22\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production:
Literature Review and Synthesis'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There have been several efforts to commercialize jatropha in other
parts of the world, including Sub-Saharan Africa, India, East Asia,
Southeast Asia, and Oceania. However, the commercial scale viability of
jatropha farms in all of these regions is currently uncertain. The
global surveys conducted by GEXSI and Leuphana reported that the vast
majority of jatropha being cultivated worldwide was being grown in
Southeast Asia, including India, China and Indonesia. The most recent
of these surveys collected data in 2011.\23\ However, after reviewing
these surveys carefully and discussing their results with experts in
industry and the USDA, we determined that practically all of the
reported jatropha plantations in Asia were aspirational and have not
resulted in commercially significant volumes of jatropha oil. EPA has
not been able to locate any information that confirms the presence of
the large scale Asian projects reported in the GEXSI and Leuphana
surveys, and there does not appear to be any official data confirming
their existence.\24\ These surveys relied on data that were self-
reported and in many cases were based on goals rather than
outcomes.\25\ A 2012 report by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
(FAS) confirms the very small scale of commercial jatropha oil
production in India.\26\ More recently, multiple companies working to
commercialize jatropha in parts of Asia also confirmed that, while
several large projects were planned in Southeast Asia, they have all
since been scaled back to pilot projects or abandoned for funding and
other reasons.\27\ For these reasons, our analysis of the GHG emissions
attributable to jatropha oil produced as biofuel feedstock for the RFS
program does not project jatropha oil production from Asia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Wahl et al. 2012.
    \24\ Letter from Cosmo Biofuels Group, ``Jatropha RFS2 Pathway
Petition Insights Into Jatropha Projects Worldwide.'' February 7,
2014
    \25\ For example, a review of jatropha promotion in India is
provided in Kumar, S., Chaube, A., Jain, S., K. 2012. ``Critical
review of jatropha biodiesel promotion policies in India. Energy
Policy, 41: 775-781.
    \26\ USDA-FAS. 2012. India Biofuels Annual. Global Agricultural
Information Network. GAIN Report Number: IN2081.
    \27\ Letter from BEI International, LLC, ``Jatropha RFS2 Pathway
Petition Insights Into Jatropha Projects Worldwide.'' January 9,
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Africa is another region with significant potential for jatropha
production. However, we decided not to model jatropha oil from Africa
in our analysis. First, there is uncertainty about whether African
jatropha oil production would qualify as renewable biomass, because it
is not clear that the land where it would be grown could be considered
existing agricultural land, as required in the CAA to qualify as
renewable biomass.\28\ Furthermore, according to one agricultural trade
expert, it is viewed as unlikely for economic reasons that Africa would
be a significant exporter of jatropha oil to the United States by the
year 2022, in part because it would require the development of a new
and potentially costly infrastructure to grow, process, and transport
the feedstock or fuel to the United States.\29\ For these reasons, our
analysis of the GHG emissions attributable to jatropha oil produced as
biofuel feedstock for the RFS program does not project jatropha oil
production from Africa, and we seek comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See the definition of renewable biomass at 40 CFR 80.1401.
    \29\ Conversation with Bruce Babcock, January 8, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we are specifically modelling jatropha growth and
transport in Mexico and Brazil, and expect most jatropha oil used as
renewable fuel feedstock for the RFS program to be grown in those
countries, we intend to apply our analysis of the GHG emissions
attributable to jatropha oil production and transport when evaluating
facility-specific petitions that propose to use jatropha oil as biofuel
feedstock, regardless of the country of origin where their jatropha oil
feedstock is grown. In the future, some jatropha oil feedstock used to
produce biofuels for the RFS may be sourced from countries other than
Mexico and Brazil, but this would be unlikely to change our overall
assessment of the aggregate GHG impacts from growing and transporting
jatropha oil. Consistent with EPA's approach for previous RFS pathway
analyses, we will periodically reevaluate whether our assessment of GHG
impacts will need to be updated in the future based on new information
or a new methodology that has the potential to significantly change our
assessment.

C. Cultivation and Harvesting

    Our assessment includes the GHG emissions attributable to growing
and harvesting jatropha seeds, including field preparation, planting,
annual inputs and harvesting, and replanting. We also estimate the
average yields, in terms of tonnes of dry jatropha seed per hectare, in
both Mexico and Brazil. The GHG emissions associated with cultivation
and harvesting are the same, per tonne of delivered jatropha oil, in
both of the main scenarios that we evaluated, as the type of land
converted is not expected to impact the emissions from these stages of
jatropha oil production. The data for our evaluation of these stages of
jatropha oil production came from the GCEH petition, as well as EPA's
literature review and our previous lifecycle GHG assessments for the
RFS program. The values and calculations in our analysis are discussed
briefly here and in more

detail in a technical memorandum to the docket.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ For more details see ``Jatropha Supporting Data and
Assumptions'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seed and Oil Yields. For the purposes of this analysis, we project
that in 2022, on average, one hectare of jatropha in southern Mexico
will yield five tonnes of dry jatropha seeds per year, while one
hectare in Brazil will yield four tonnes per hectare. For Mexico, five
tonnes per hectare reflects a middle to upper bound estimate of
recorded yields in the literature, and is also supported by information
provided in the GCEH petition for current yields. We view five tonnes
per hectare as a conservative estimate of yields in the year 2022
because intensive jatropha cultivation is relatively new, with
significant room for potential advances through genetics, breeding and
improved agronomic practices. There are fewer recorded observed yields
in northeastern Brazil; however, based on evidence from our literature
review of environmental and climate characteristics, we expect jatropha
yield in this region will be somewhat lower than yields in southern
Mexico.\31\ Given the potential for scientific breakthroughs to produce
yield improvements for jatropha, we also consider this a conservative
projection for 2022 yields in Brazil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See for example Trabucco et al. 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information discussed in Section III-E below, we
assume that after crushing, pre-treatment and transport, each tonne of
dry jatropha seeds yields 0.26 tonnes of jatropha oil delivered to a
biofuel production facility. (This figure is used to convert
cultivation and harvesting GHG emissions from kgCO2e per
hectare of jatropha production to kgCO2e per tonne of
delivered oil.)
    Preparation and Planting. When jatropha is first planted, chemical
and energy inputs are required. For our analysis, we used average
inputs of nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, herbicide, and diesel use
from data in the GCEH petition, as shown in Table III-1.\32\ In Brazil,
lime is also added as a soil amendment during preparation and planting,
\33\ although it is not required in many parts of southern Mexico.\34\
While there is relatively little data available on the inputs and
energy requirements for the preparation and planting stages of
jatropha, the values provided in the GCEH petition were within the
range of other values that we found through literature review.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Table III-1 shows the average results for a scenario with
equal amounts of jatropha output (by mass) in Mexico and Brazil.
    \33\ Bailis, R. E. and J. E. Baka. 2010. Greenhouse gas
emissions and land use change from Jatropha curcas-based jet fuel in
Brazil. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(22) 8684-8691.
    \34\ Lime is required in Brazil because the soils there are
highly acidic, but it is not required in southern Mexico where the
native soil pH is well-suited for jatropha.
    \35\ We consider the crop input data used in our assessment to
be conservative because they result in greater estimate GHG
emissions per tonne of oil produced than most of the other data we
reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We assumed that jatropha has a 20 year crop cycle, meaning that
every 20 years the existing jatropha plants are removed and the crop is
replanted.\36\ Therefore, the GHG emissions associated with preparation
and planting occur every 20 years. Annualized emissions from
preparation and planting are shown in Table III-1. We estimate total
GHG emissions from jatropha preparation and planting of 66.6 kilograms
of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions (kgCO2e) per ton of
jatropha oil that has been harvested, extracted, pre-treated to lower
acidity and delivered to a biofuel producer (``delivered jatropha
oil'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ For more details see ``Jatropha Supporting Data and
Assumptions'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.

   Table III-1--Annualized GHG Emissions From Preparation and Planting
              [kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 GHG
                                       Inputs per  hectare    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen fertilizer................  0.07 kg...............        0.01
Phosphorus fertilizer..............  0.02 kg...............        0.001
Potassium fertilizer...............  0.09 kg...............        0.003
Herbicide..........................  1.2 gal...............        1.8
Lime...............................  1.1 tonnes............       21.3
Diesel.............................  79.3 gal..............       43.5
                                    ------------------------------------
    Total Annualized Emissions.....  ......................       66.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual Inputs and Harvesting. After the jatropha fields are
prepared and planted, there are annual GHG emissions associated with
applying crop inputs and harvesting the jatropha seeds. To estimate the
average annual emissions from these activities we assumed an average
twenty year replanting cycle, meaning that in any given year five
percent of the jatropha fields will be in the replanting stage, and
therefore have zero emissions associated with annual crop inputs and
harvesting. Table III-2 summarizes the emissions from these activities.
    Annual Fertilizer and Pesticide Inputs. The GCEH petition states
that some of the husks from the jatropha fruits are used for
fertilizer. In addition, the seedcake produced after pressing oil from
the seeds can be used as an organic fertilizer. We assumed that
fertilizer inputs would have to at least make up for nutrients lost
from harvesting the jatropha fruits.\37\ Using literature values for
nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium in jatropha fruits, husks, and
seedcake,\38\ and our projected seed yield, we determined that the
jatropha husks and seedcake have nearly enough nutrients to replace the
nutrients lost from harvesting the seed fruit. We assume that growers
will apply 9.3 kilograms per hectare of additional inorganic fertilizer
to replace the lost nutrients from harvesting, which is within the
range of literature values and similar to the data provided by GCEH. We
also assumed use of small amounts of pesticide, herbicide and
insecticide based on information from the peer reviewed literature.\39\
The GHG emissions associated with fertilizer and pesticide use were
estimated using the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS
rule.\40\ Table III-2 shows the GHG emissions from annual fertilizer
and pesticide use, not including nitrous oxide emissions that occur
after they are applied to the field (which is discussed separately,
below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Bailis and Baka 2010 used the same approach to estimate
fertilizer requirements.
    \38\ Bailis, R. E. and J. E. Baka. 2010. Greenhouse gas
emissions and land use change from Jatropha curcas-based jet fuel in
Brazil. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(22) 8684-8691.
    \39\ Bailis, R. E. and J. E. Baka. 2010. Greenhouse gas
emissions and land use change from Jatropha curcas-based jet fuel in
Brazil. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(22) 8684-8691.
    \40\ See Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the March 2010 RFS rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual Energy Use. In addition to chemical inputs, energy will be
used annually for irrigation, and to power equipment used for field
maintenance and harvesting. For the annual diesel, gasoline and
electricity inputs, we used values provided in the GCEH petition, which
are within the range of values EPA found through literature review.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil Production and
Transport GHG Emissions, Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0293.

       Table III-2 GHG Emissions From Annual Inputs and Harvesting
              [kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 GHG
                                        Inputs  (per ha)      emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen fertilizer................  9.3 kg................        27.8
Phosphorus fertilizer..............  9.3 kg................         9.5
Potassium fertilizer...............  9.3 kg................         6.3
Herbicide..........................  0.5 kg................        11.5

Fungicide-Bacteriocide.............  0.02 L................         0.01
Pesticide..........................  0.06 L................         0.7
Diesel.............................  15.6 gal..............       162.5
Gasoline...........................  1.6 gal...............        14.8
Electricity........................  184 kWh...............        40.9
    Total..........................  ......................       274.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual Nitrous-Oxide Emissions. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is
emitted from nitrogen fertilizer and from parts of the jatropha plant
that are left on the field to decay or applied as fertilizer
(``jatropha residues''). The jatropha residues can be divided into
three categories: (1) Husks that are applied to the field as
fertilizer, (2) seedcake that is applied to the field as fertilizer,
and (3) above and below ground biomass from the jatropha plant (e.g.,
the trunk, branches, leaves, and roots). The above and below ground
biomass from the jatropha plant becomes a plant residue every 20 years,
when the old plants are removed and new plants are planted. For each of
these categories of jatropha residues, we used equations and factors
from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) to calculate direct and indirect N2O emissions, and
we annualized them by dividing by 20.\42\ Estimated annual emissions
from fertilizer and plant residues are shown in Table III-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Direct emissions are emitted from the jatropha plantation,
whereas indirect emissions occur for material that has moved to
another location (e.g., through leaching or runoff) before it
produces N2O or a pre-cursor of N2O. For crop
residues, such as above and below ground biomass, direct emissions
occur when the plant material decays.

    Table III-3--N2O Emissions From Fertilizer and Jatropha Residues
              [kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 GHG
                                                              emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fertilizer, direct.........................................         37.4
Fertilizer, indirect.......................................         12.2
Husks, direct..............................................         51.5
Husks, indirect............................................         11.6
Seedcake, direct...........................................        281.7
Seedcake, indirect.........................................         63.4
Above and below ground biomass, direct.....................        204.7
Above and below ground biomass, indirect...................         46.0
    Total..................................................        709.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table III-4 provides a summary of the average GHG emissions
attributable to growing and harvesting jatropha in southern Mexico and
northeastern Brazil. Each of the emissions categories listed in the
table are explained above in this section.

    Table III-4 GHG Emissions Attributable to Growing and Harvesting
                                Jatropha
              [kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 GHG
                     Emissions Category                       emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparation and Planting...................................           67
Annual Inputs and Harvesting...............................          274
Nitrous Oxide Emissions....................................          709
    Total..................................................        1,050
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Land Use Change and Agricultural Sector Emissions

    As explained in Section III-B, above, we believe that southern
Mexico and northeastern Brazil are the most likely locations for
commercial-scale production of jatropha for use in making biofuels for
the RFS program. According to the GCEH petition, there are large areas
of grasslands in southern Mexico that are suitable areas for jatropha
production. These areas were used for crop production or pasture, but
they are now fallow or used for very low intensity grazing. For
example, Skutsch et al. evaluated jatropha land use change impacts in
Yucatan, Mexico and found two plantations that had been planted on
estates that had previously been used for low-intensity grazing.\43\
There are also grasslands in northeastern Brazil that are suitable for
jatropha production, although much of this land may currently be in use
as pasture. For example, Bailis and Baka surveyed jatropha producers in
northeastern Brazil and found that the producers they approached had
primarily planted their jatropha on pasture land.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Skutsch, M., E. de los Rios, S. Solis, E. Riegelhaupt, D.
Hinojosa, S. Gerfert, Y. Gao, and O. Masera. 2011. ``Jatropha in
Mexico: Environmental and Social Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel
Program.'' Ecology and Society 16(4):11. doi:10.5751/ES-04448-
160411.
    \44\ Bailis, R.E. and J.E. Baka. 2010. ``Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Land Use Change from Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in
Brazil.'' Environmental Science & Technology 44(22):8684-8691.
doi:10.1021/es1019178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this information, the first scenario we evaluated for land
use change emissions considers jatropha production on grasslands that
would otherwise not be used for crops or pasture. In a second scenario,
we used economic modeling to look at the potential land use change and
agricultural sector emissions (including indirect emissions) of growing
jatropha on land that would otherwise be used for crops or pasture.
    Jatropha on Currently Unused Grassland Scenario. Analyzing the land
use change emissions associated with growing jatropha on grassland that
is not currently being used for agricultural purposes requires
estimates of the carbon sequestered by the jatropha plantations, as
compared to the grasslands they would replace. We estimated the average
amount of biomass carbon sequestered by jatropha plantations in
southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil, projected out to 2022.
Jatropha biomass carbon stocks were estimated using available
scientific information from the literature. Reinhardt et al. measured
basic data about jatropha plants, such as root to shoot ratios and
biomass carbon content. Bailis and Baka used the data from Reinhardt et
al. to estimate biomass carbon stocks for different jatropha yield
scenarios. Using our projected jatropha yields of 5 and 4 tonnes per
hectare per year for Mexico and Brazil respectively (the basis for
these projections is discussed above), we used the Bailis and Baka
approach to estimate average biomass carbon stocks of 8.9 and 8.1
tonnes per hectare for ten year old jatropha plantations in Mexico and
Brazil, respectively. Per the methodology developed for the March 2010
RFS rule, we translated these estimates into average biomass carbon
stocks over 30 years. Assuming linear growth rates, a 20 year
replanting cycle and pruning of any growth after 10 years to ensure
fruit accessibility, we estimated average jatropha plantation biomass
carbon stocks over 30 years to be 6.9 and 6.3 tonnes per hectare for
Mexico and Brazil respectively.\45\ These values are within the range
of estimates in the literature for jatropha plantations in these
regions.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ For details on this calculation see ``Jatropha Oil
Production and Transport GHG Calculations'' spreadsheet on Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.
    \46\ For a comparison with other values in the literature see
Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil Production and Transport
GHG Emissions, Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For comparison, based on our analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule
we estimate that grasslands in Mexico and Brazil contain approximately
4.1 and 10.9 tonnes of carbon per hectare, respectively. For our first
scenario, we looked at the land use change and agricultural sector
emissions associated with growing jatropha on grassland in Mexico and
Brazil that would not otherwise be used for crop production or pasture.
Comparing the carbon stocks

of jatropha and the grassland it replaces, we estimate that growing
jatropha on grassland in Mexico results in a net carbon sequestration,
or negative emissions, because the jatropha plantation sequesters more
carbon on average over thirty years. Conversely, planting jatropha on
grassland in Brazil results in a net carbon emission. Specifically, for
jatropha grown on otherwise unused grasslands in Mexico and Brazil we
estimate land use change emissions of negative 268 and positive 550
kgCO2e per tonne of delivered jatropha oil, respectively.
Looking at a scenario in which we assume an equal amount of growth of
jatropha from unused grasslands in Mexico and Brazil results in land
use change emissions of 141 kgCO2e per tonne of delivered
jatropha oil. (For comparison, for the March 2010 RFS rule we estimated
land use change emissions of 1,158 kgCO2e per tonne of
soybean oil used for biofuel.) In this scenario there are no indirect
agricultural sector emissions, such as from indirect impacts on crop or
livestock production, because jatropha is not an agricultural
commodity, and the displaced land would not otherwise have been used
for commodity production.
    Jatropha on Agricultural Land Scenario. In the second scenario we
evaluated, we assumed jatropha would be grown on land that would
otherwise be used to grow crops or for pasture. In this case jatropha
production would impact market prices for the crops and livestock it
displaces, leading to other indirect effects. For example, one of the
likely indirect impacts would be to increase crop and livestock
production in other locations to make up for the production displaced
by jatropha. As we have done for the other RFS analyses, we estimated
the size of these impacts with an agricultural sector model.
    For our agricultural sector modeling of jatropha oil, we used a
similar approach to the one we used for sugarcane in the March 2010 RFS
rule, in which agricultural sector modeling was conducted using only
the FAPRI-CARD model, and not the Forestry and Agricultural Sector
Optimization Model (FASOM). For other feedstocks (e.g., corn, soybeans,
grain sorghum), we used FASOM to model domestic forestry and
agricultural impacts in addition to using the FAPRI-CARD model for
international impacts. Similar to sugarcane, for jatropha we only used
the FAPRI-CARD model because we do not expect jatropha to be grown in
the United States as a biofuel feedstock for the RFS program.
    To date, jatropha has not achieved a significant presence in global
agricultural markets. For example, EPA is not aware that it is traded
on any agricultural exchange, and there does not appear to be any
publicly available data on jatropha prices or trade flows. These
limitations create significant difficulties when attempting to model
jatropha in an agro-economic framework, such as the FAPRI-CARD model.
The creation of robust assumptions for production costs at various
levels of production (i.e., production cost curves), as well as
estimates for supply and demand at various prices (i.e., supply curves
and demand curves), depends upon these types of historical data. We
considered building production cost curves for jatropha oil based on
land, crop yield, and crop input data. However, for jatropha,
production cost data are limited to a very small number of companies
and regions, making it difficult to estimate or project how much
jatropha oil could be produced at various production cost levels. We
also have limited information to determine the price that jatropha
might command on the open market, or the extent to which it might be
competitive with other planted crops for acreage. Without this
information, it is not possible to form supply and demand curves for
jatropha in the FAPRI-CARD model, which the model typically uses for
other crops that we have evaluated to project where and in what
quantities jatropha will be grown. Because of these limitations, EPA
applied a slightly modified methodology in this analysis.
    For other crops that EPA has evaluated for the RFS program, we have
used the FAPRI-CARD model to project international agricultural sector
impacts by running different biofuel volume scenarios and allowing the
model to decide where to grow the additional crops needed to produce
the biofuel volumes. Because of the data limitations regarding
jatropha, the FAPRI-CARD model is not able to decide where to grow
jatropha or what other types of land uses to displace for its
production. Therefore, to model the agricultural sector impacts of
expanding jatropha production, we exogenously specified how much and
what types of land it would displace in Mexico and Brazil. The FAPRI-
CARD model then estimated how the crops and pasture displaced by
jatropha would be made up elsewhere via crop switching, land conversion
and other market-mediated effects.
    First, similar to our modeling for other feedstocks, we used
available information to project the amount of jatropha oil produced as
biofuel feedstock for the RFS program in the year 2022. We developed
two analyses for the production of 130 million gallons of biodiesel in
2022, one where all of the jatropha oil is produced in Mexico (the
``Mexico only case'') and one where the jatropha oil production is
split evenly between Mexico and Brazil (the ``Mexico and Brazil
case''). Although there is limited historical data available to use as
the basis for formulating jatropha oil volume scenarios for modeling,
we believe that a total production level of 130 million gallons of
biodiesel in 2022 is sufficiently large to produce robust estimates of
agricultural and GHG impacts in the FAPRI-CARD model, while still being
feasible. As described elsewhere in this notice, we conservatively
project that in 2022 Mexico and Brazil will have delivered jatropha oil
yields of 1.3 and 1.0 tonnes per hectare per year, respectively.\47\
Based on these oil yields, in the Mexico only case the production of
enough jatropha oil feedstock to produce 130 million gallons of
biodiesel would require approximately 350 thousand hectares of jatropha
production in Mexico. In the Mexico and Brazil case, we modeled
approximately 172 thousand hectares of jatropha in Mexico and 216
thousand hectares in Brazil.\48\ The results of our modeling are based
on a comparison of this jatropha production case to a control case that
included no jatropha oil production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Based on projected average 2022 dry seed yields in Mexico
and Brazil of five and four tonnes per hectare, respectively. We
also assume that dry seeds have 35% oil content, 75% oil extraction
efficiency and a 1.4 percent loss from oil pre-treatment.
    \48\ Given the yields for Mexico and Brazil described above,
these cultivation areas correspond with 65 million gallons of
jatropha oil biodiesel each from Mexican and Brazilian jatropha oil
production, for a total of 130 million gallons. The specific
underlying assumptions and calculations that produced these figures
are available in the docket for this notice at EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To model the agricultural sector impacts of jatropha production in
Mexico, we specified in the FAPRI-CARD model the area and types of crop
land that jatropha would displace. Based on the information provided in
the GCEH petition and collected through EPA's literature review,
jatropha production in southern Mexico will most likely occur in the
states of Yucatan, Chiapas and Oaxaca because they offer the most
suitable climate conditions and available land. Over 80 percent of the
agricultural land in this area is used for corn production, with
smaller areas devoted to specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables,
herbs and spices.\49\ We do not expect jatropha to

displace the higher value specialty crops, so we focused our analysis
on the land used for commodity crops: corn, grain sorghum, soybeans and
wheat. We then specified in the FAPRI-CARD model that jatropha will
displace these staple crops based on their current share of land used
for commodity crops: 96 percent corn, two percent grain sorghum, and
one percent each of soybeans and wheat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Mexico Information Service for Agribusiness and Fisheries
(SIAP), http://www.siap.gob.mx/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Brazil we used a slightly different approach to take advantage
of the fact that the FAPRI-CARD model for Brazil is significantly more
detailed than the Mexico module. As explained above, based on EPA's
literature review we determined that jatropha production in Brazil
would predominantly occur in the northeastern part of the country,
which correlates with the Northeast Coast and North-Northeast Cerrados
regions in the FAPRI-CARD Brazil module. Unlike the Mexico part of the
FAPRI-CARD model, the Brazil module includes crop and pasture land, and
allows for switching between the two. Instead of specifying how much of
each type of crop and pasture to displace with jatropha, we specified
the area needed for jatropha production and allowed the FAPRI-CARD
model to project the land used for jatropha production.
    Table III-5 summarizes the land use changes projected in our
modeling. We evaluated two cases: one involving jatropha production
only in Mexico, and the other involving production in both Brazil and
Mexico. In both cases, the land use impacts in Mexico are the
replacement of other crops (primarily corn) with jatropha. In the
Brazil and Mexico case, jatropha is planted on roughly three-quarters
pasture and one-quarter crop land in Brazil. In both cases, the rest of
the world (outside of Mexico and Brazil) increases its crop area.
However, globally the total area devoted to non-jatropha crops and
pasture decreases. Overall, the rest of the world expands their
agricultural land (the sum of crop and pasture land including
jatropha), meaning that other types of land, including unmanaged
grassland and forest, are converted for agricultural uses.

                             Table III-5--Projected Land Use Changes by Case in 2022
                                            [Thousand hectares] \50\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Crop Land
                                               -------------------------------------------------     Pasture
                                                   Jatropha       Other Crops       All Crops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Mexico Only Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico........................................             345            (345)               0               0
Brazil........................................               0               9                9              (5)
Rest of World.................................               0             114              114             (63)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................             345            (222)             123             (68)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Brazil and Mexico Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico........................................             172            (172)               0               0
Brazil........................................             216             (62)             154            (154)
Rest of World.................................               0              81               81             (49)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................             388            (153)             235            (203)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table III-6 summarizes the projected changes in the production of
corn, soybeans and sugarcane, the crops with the largest changes in the
cases we simulated. In both cases, there is a reduction in the total
area of corn but an increase in the amount of corn produced. This is
the result of corn production shifting to regions with higher yields,
particularly the United States. In both cases, there is a reduction in
the area and production of soybeans and sugarcane. All of these changes
are less than 0.1% of projected crop production in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ For the tables in this Notice, the numbers in parentheses
are negative and the totals may not sum due to rounding.

                         Table III-6--Projected Crop Production Changes by Case in 2022
                                            [Thousand metric tonnes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Corn           Soybeans        Sugarcane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Mexico Only Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico.......................................................          (1,151)              (9)               0
Brazil.......................................................             292              103              (51)
United States................................................             738              (97)               5
China........................................................             115               (1)              (7)
Rest of World................................................             185               (8)              (4)
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................             178              (12)             (58)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Mexico and Brazil Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico.......................................................            (578)              (4)               0
Brazil.......................................................             110               22             (300)
United States................................................             375              (37)               2

China........................................................              62                1               (2)
Rest of World................................................             101                1               54
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................              70              (18)            (246)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table III-7 summarizes the projected impacts on global meat
production. In both of the cases, meat production declines. These
changes are on the order of approximately 0.01%, or less, of projected
global livestock production in 2022.

     Table III-7--Changes in Global Meat Production by Case in 2022
                        [thousand metric tonnes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Mexico     Brazil and
                                                 only case   Mexico Case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beef..........................................       (0.4)         (4.1)
Pork..........................................       (9.4)         (5.7)
Poultry.......................................      (10.0)         (5.8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the projected agricultural sector impacts in 2022 of
growing jatropha on agricultural land in Mexico and Brazil in the two
cases we evaluated can be summarized as a reduction in crop and pasture
land in Mexico and Brazil which triggers an increase in crop area in
other countries. Just over half of the increase in crop area in other
countries comes at the expense of pasture land, with the rest coming
from other types of land, including unmanaged grassland and forest.
Globally, corn production increases, while soybean, sugarcane and meat
production declines. Detailed modeling results and further explanation
are provided in the docket for this notice,\51\ and we welcome comments
on all aspects of our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil Production and
Transport GHG Emissions, Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the GHG emissions associated with the land use changes
summarized in Table III-5, EPA used the same methodology as developed
for the March 2010 RFS rule. Per this methodology, the crop and pasture
area changes in 2022 derived from the FAPRI-CARD model were evaluated
with Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite
data to project what types of land (e.g., grassland, savanna, forest)
would be converted to agricultural land (crops and pasture) in regions
where the FAPRI-CARD model projected agricultural expansion. For these
projections we used the satellite data to determine what types of land
have been converted to crops and pasture in each region, and then
applied those land use change patterns to the agricultural changes
projected by the FAPRI-CARD modeling. Land use change GHG emissions
were then estimated over 30 years using emission factors derived from
various data sources accounting for average carbon stocks on eight
types of land in 755 distinct regions.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Section 2.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
March 2010 RFS rule, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The land use change GHG emissions are summarized in Table III-8,
including results for both the Mexico only and Mexico and Brazil cases.
The results are broken out regionally by Mexico, Brazil, and Rest of
World, because as discussed above, the great majority of land use
change impacts came from Mexico and Brazil. Table III-8 also includes
the total emissions for the low and high ends of the 95% confidence
range for land use change GHG emissions, based on the land use change
uncertainty analysis methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule,
which considers the uncertainty in the satellite data and land use
change emissions factors used in our assessment.

       Table III-8--Land Use Change GHG Emissions by Case in 2022
                [kgCO2e per tonne delivered jatropha oil]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Mexico      Brazil and
                                               Only case    Mexico Case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico......................................     (2,795)        (1,397)
Brazil......................................        843            636
Rest of World...............................        569            356
Total (Mean)................................     (1,383)          (406)
Total (Low).................................     (3,725)        (1,827)
Total (High)................................        612            809
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both cases, the mean values suggest negative land use change
emissions (net sequestration) associated with growing jatropha on
agricultural land. This is due primarily to the net sequestration that
we project from replacing corn fields with jatropha plantations in
Mexico. Per our analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule, corn in Mexico
has average biomass carbon stocks of five tonnes per hectare.\53\ In
our assessment average jatropha plantation biomass carbon stocks are
6.9 tonnes per hectare, so every hectare of corn replaced by jatropha
increases biomass carbon by 1.9 tonnes (including both above- and
below-ground biomass). Additionally, converting corn to jatropha
results in additional soil carbon sequestration. Due to the reduced
tillage and increased biomass returned to the soil for jatropha (tree
litter and prunings) compared to corn, we estimate that after 20 years
jatropha would add approximately 27.7 tonnes of soil carbon per hectare
compared to corn production in Mexico.\54\ Therefore, annualized over
thirty years we estimate that replacing corn with jatropha in Mexico
would result in additional soil sequestration of approximately 1.0
tonnes of carbon per hectare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Section 2.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
March 2010 RFS rule, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.
    \54\ Based on the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS
rule, the soil carbon stocks reach equilibrium after 20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both cases, we project positive land use change emissions in
Brazil and other countries. We project land use change emissions in
Brazil for a number of reasons. In the Mexico only case, Brazil expands
its crop production to backfill for some of the lost production in
Mexico. Some of this crop expansion occurs on pasture, which results in
net land use change emissions from both biomass and soil carbon, and
some of the crop expansion occurs on other types of land, including
forests. In particular, the FAPRI-CARD model projects crop and pasture
expansion in the Amazon, an area with particularly high carbon stocks,
resulting in large emissions per hectare of conversion. In the Brazil
and Mexico case, the expansion of jatropha onto corn or soybean land
results in a net sequestration, but this net sequestration is smaller
than the emissions associated with replacing sugarcane and pasture with
jatropha.

    In both cases, we also project land use change emissions from the
rest of the world (all regions other than Mexico and Brazil). In our
modeling the main impact in other countries is increased crop
production to respond to higher prices and to backfill for some of the
lost production from Mexico and Brazil. The additional cropland
replaces some pasture and some other types of land, including unmanaged
grasslands and forests, which results in net land use change emissions.
    For this second scenario, our analysis also considers indirect
emissions associated with changes in fertilizer, pesticide and energy
use for crop production, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions
associated with changes in crop production. The sources of indirect
livestock emissions include emissions from energy use for livestock
production, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions associated with
raising cattle, dairy cows, swine and poultry. The emissions for
indirect crop production were estimated based on international crop
input data and emission factors developed and peer reviewed for the
March 2010 RFS rule. The livestock emissions factors are from the IPCC.
    In the first main scenario we evaluated, where jatropha production
occurs on grassland that is not otherwise used for crop production or
grazing, there are no indirect emissions associated with changes in
fertilizer, pesticide and energy use for crop production, and methane
and nitrous oxide emissions associated with changes in crop production.
In the second scenario, where jatropha is grown on agricultural land,
there are indirect emissions associated with how the agricultural
sector responds to the displacement of crop and grazing land for
jatropha. Table III-9 summarizes the indirect crop production and
livestock emissions impacts for both of the cases we evaluated for
scenario two. Indirect agricultural emissions are negative in both
cases, primarily because of emission reductions from decreased corn
production in Mexico. Indirect livestock emissions are negative,
because as shown in Table III-7, we project reductions in meat
production in the cases evaluated.

Table III-9--Indirect Crop Production and Livestock Emissions by Case in
                                  2022
                [kgCO2e per tonne delivered jatropha oil]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Mexico     Mexico and
                                                 only case   Brazil case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect Crop Production......................       (431)         (338)
Indirect Livestock............................       (125)         (392)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table III-10 summarizes the land use change, and agricultural
sector emissions in the two main scenarios that we evaluated. Note that
this table does not include the emissions associated with cultivation
and harvesting discussed above in Section III-C.

          Table III-10--Land Use Change and Indirect Agricultural Sector Emissions by Scenario in 2022
                                    [kgCO2e per tonne delivered jatropha oil]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Scenario                          Jatropha produced   Jatropha  produced on  agricultural
-------------------------------------------------------      on unused                       land
                                                            grassland in    ------------------------------------
                         Case                             Mexico in Brazil     Mexico only    Mexico and Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Change.......................................                  141         (1,383)                (406)
Indirect Crop Production..............................  ...................           (431)                (338)
Indirect Livestock....................................  ...................           (125)                (392)
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................................                  141         (1,940)              (1,136)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Feedstock Transport and Processing

    Producing fuels from jatropha requires oil to be first extracted
from its seeds, and then refined into a finished fuel product. Oil can
either be expelled from the seeds by mechanical treatment or extracted
using chemical solvents. There are two commonly used types of
mechanical expellers, the screw press and the ram press. The screw
press is typically used, and is somewhat more efficient at expelling
oil (75-80% yield) than the ram press (60-65% yield). Up to three
passes is common to achieve these yields. Certain pretreatments of
jatropha seeds, such as cooking, can increase the expelled oil yield to
89% after a single pass using a screw press and 91% after a second
pass. Chemical extraction can achieve greater oil yields than
mechanical expulsion. (The most commonly used chemical extraction
method, the n-hexane method, can achieve yields of 99%). However,
chemical extraction is capital intensive and only economical at very
large scales of production. According to Bailis and Baka, all jatropha
oil produced in Brazil is extracted by screw press at one facility.
Based on our review of available literature, EPA's evaluation
considered oil recovery from jatropha seeds to occur via screw press
mechanical expulsion assuming oil yield of 75% and seed oil content of
35%.\55\ Based on reported electricity and fuel demands for jatropha
oil extraction, we estimate that oil extraction results in emissions of
175 kgCO2e per ton of delivered jatropha oil.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See ``GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil Production:
Literature Review and Synthesis'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293.
    \56\ For details on this calculation see the ``Jatropha
Lifecycle GHG Calculations'' spreadsheet on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our evaluation also considers emissions associated with pretreating
the jatropha oil.\57\ Based on data provided in the GCEH petition, we
evaluated the emissions from jatropha oil pretreatment with chemicals
(typically sodium hydroxide) to lower its acid content, and electricity
used to heat the reaction.\58\ The outputs from the pre-treatment
process are pre-treated jatropha oil, soapstock and filter cake. The
pre-treated jatropha oil is ready for transport and use as a biodiesel
feedstock. The soapstock and filter cake are low value byproducts, and
as a conservative approach we model them as resulting in no GHG
emissions impacts, i.e., we do not give a displacement credit for these
byproducts. We estimate the GHG

emissions from pre-treatment are approximately 4.7 kgCO2e
per ton of delivered jatropha oil. Pretreatment may occur at the oil
extraction facility or the biofuel production facility, so it may be
appropriate for EPA to revise the pre-treatment emissions on a case-by-
case basis when evaluating petitions from specific biofuel production
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Other vegetable oils that EPA has approved as feedstocks,
including soybean oil, commonly undergo similar pre-treatment before
they are converted to biofuels. The oil recovered after pretreatment
is still chemically jatropha oil.
    \58\ The pre-treatment data provided in the GCEH petition is
within the range of values EPA found in the literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For our GHG analysis, we assumed that jatropha is produced, and the
jatropha oil is extracted and pre-treated in Mexico and Brazil, and
that the pre-treated oil is then transported to the United States for
use as biofuel feedstock. First, we calculate the emissions associated
with transporting the jatropha seed 20 miles by truck to a facility
where the crude jatropha is extracted via screw press and then pre-
treated. The truck is loaded with kernel shells and seedcake and
returns 20 miles to the plantation. The pre-treated jatropha oil is
transported 75 miles by truck to a port and then shipped 500 miles by
barge to a port in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. For this scenario we
estimate the seed transport emissions to be 24 kgCO2e/mmBtu
and the oil transport emissions to be 10 kgCO2e/mmBtu. For
our analysis, the distances and modes for seed and oil transport are
based on data provided in the GCEH petition for jatropha production in
Yucatan, Mexico. We believe these values are also reasonable to apply
for jatropha production in other regions, including Brazil. This
jatropha oil transport scenario was developed based on the best
currently-available information, but may need to be adjusted when EPA
evaluates individual petitions if the petitioner's jatropha oil
feedstocks are delivered via a significantly different route than the
one EPA modeled.

F. Potential Invasiveness

    Jatropha is not currently widespread in the United States, and is
not listed on the federal noxious weed list.\59\ A recent weed risk
assessment by USDA found that jatropha has a moderate risk of
invasiveness in the United States.\60\ Its seeds are toxic to animals
and humans, and it is considered a weed in anthropogenic production and
natural systems. Jatropha is a perennial plant, meaning that if a grove
is abandoned, seeds would still be produced. In addition, jatropha can
regrow from its roots. For these reasons, and in consultation with
USDA, the use of jatropha as a biofuel feedstock raises concerns about
its threat of invasiveness and whether its production could require
remediation activities that would be associated with additional GHG
emissions. Therefore, similar to EPA's actions with respect to other
biofuel feedstocks found to present invasiveness risks, such as Arundo
donax and Pennisetum purpureum, EPA anticipates that any petition
approvals for renewable fuel pathways involving the use of jatropha oil
as feedstock will include requirements related to mitigating risks
associated with invasiveness. However, based on our consultations with
USDA, EPA does not believe that the requirements for jatropha are
likely to be as stringent as those for Arundo donax and Pennisetum
purpureum, because, in the judgment of USDA, the risk of invasiveness
for jatropha is likely to be smaller than for these two other
feedstocks.\61\ A fuel producer may alternatively demonstrate that
there is not a significant likelihood of spread beyond the planted
area, or that the species will be grown and processed in its native
range where no or little risk of impact is expected if it spreads from
planting sites. As outlined in the rule published on July 11, 2013 (78
FR 41702) for Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum, the fuel producer
would need a letter from USDA that concludes that jatropha does not
pose a spread of risk beyond the planted area. With these requirements
in place, we would assume that there are no GHG emissions associated
with potential invasiveness when jatropha oil is used as a biofuel
feedstock. EPA is taking comment on the invasiveness concerns of
jatropha and the appropriateness of the referenced requirements in
mitigating those concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ USDA (2014). ``Federal Noxious Weed List.'' Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf.
    \60\ USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2015).
``Weed risk assessment for Jatropha curcas L. (Euphorbiaceae)--
Physic nut.'' The weed risk assessment classifies jatropha as
``evaluate further,'' which means it poses a moderate risk of
invasiveness.
    \61\ For details on the requirements imposed on Arundo donax and
Pennisetum purpureum, see the rule published on July 11, 2013 (78 FR
41702), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-11/pdf/2013-16488.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 G. Summary of GHG Emissions From Jatropha Oil Production and Transport

    The results of our analysis of the GHG emissions associated with
jatropha oil production and transport are summarized in Table III-11.
The table summarizes the results for the two main scenarios that we
evaluated: the first scenario where jatropha is grown on unused
grassland in Mexico and Brazil and a second scenario where it is grown
on agricultural land. For the second scenario, results are summarized
for two cases: the first with jatropha production on agricultural land
in Mexico, and the second with jatropha production on agricultural land
in Mexico and Brazil. For comparison, Table III-11 also includes a
summary of soybean oil production and transport GHG emissions as
estimated for the March 2010 RFS rule. (Some emissions categories for
the soybean results have been combined to align as much as possible
with the jatropha results.) The results summarized in Table III-11 show
that based on the scenarios we evaluated, the GHG emissions associated
with producing and transporting jatropha oil as a biofuel feedstock are
less than similar emissions for soybean oil. When evaluating petitions
to use jatropha oil as biofuel feedstock we would also consider GHG
emissions from fuel production and fuel distribution, in addition to
the emissions summarized in Table III-11 (adjusted as appropriate for
petitioners' individual circumstances).
    The agency also conducted an uncertainty analysis and estimated the
95 percent confidence range for each of the scenarios evaluated. For
this evaluation, we used the same methodology and spreadsheet model
used for the March 2010 RFS rule. For the unused grassland scenarios we
considered the uncertainty in the emissions factors used in our
analysis. For the agricultural land scenarios, we considered the
uncertainty in both the range of potential values for the satellite
data and land use change emissions factors used in our modeling. The
low and high ends of the 95 percent confidence range are presented
below in Table III-11, with results from the jatropha scenarios
displayed along with the results from our soybean oil modeling for the
March 2010 RFS rule. The range is narrowest for the unused grassland-
only scenario because it does not incur uncertainty associated with
using satellite data to project land use change patterns. Comparing the
uncertainty estimates for the scenario with jatropha oil produced on
agricultural land and the estimates for the soybean oil results, the
confidence range is narrower for the soybean results because a greater
proportion of the land use change impacts for soybeans are in regions
and impact types of land where EPA has better quality data. We invite
comment on our analysis and the results presented below.

                      Table III-11--Production and Transport GHG Emissions for Jatropha Oil
                                 [kgCO[ihel2]e per tonne of delivered oil] \62\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Jatropha oil
                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
         Emissions category           Produced on Unused      Produced on agricultural land        Soybean oil
                                     grassland in Mexico ---------------------------------------
                                          and Brazil        Mexico Only      Mexico and Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Change....................                  141         (1,383)                 (406)           1,158
Preparation and Planting...........                   67             40                    67               (3)
Annual Cultivation.................                  983            964                   983
Indirect Crop Production...........  ...................           (431)                 (338)
Indirect Livestock.................  ...................           (125)                 (392)            (291)
Oil Extraction.....................                  175            175                   175              470
Oil Pre-Treatment..................                    5              5                     5
Seed Transport.....................                   24             24                    24               91
Oil Transport......................                   10             10                    10
    Total..........................                1,404           (721)                  128            1,425
Low................................                1,217         (3,063)               (1,293)             470
High...............................                1,590          1,273                 1,342            2,580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the results summarized in Table III-11, we believe it is
reasonable, as a conservative approach (and subject to confirmation
upon review of individual petition submissions), to apply the GHG
emissions estimates we established in the March 2010 rule for the
production and transport of soybean oil to jatropha oil when evaluating
future facility-specific petitions from biofuel producers seeking to
generate RINs for volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil. While
it is possible that jatropha could be grown on other types of land,
such as shrubland or secondary forest, that would result in higher GHG
emissions than the scenarios we evaluated, the RFS program's
qualification requirements for renewable biomass would prevent the use
of jatropha grown on such lands from use as an RFS renewable fuel
feedstock. The renewable biomass definition would not prevent a
scenario where jatropha is planted on agricultural land, and the
displaced crops or pasturage is then shifted to shrubland or
forestland. However, as discussed above, our modeling suggests that
this scenario is not expected. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable
to conclude that the overall emissions attributable to the production
and transportation of jatropha oil used to produce biofuels for the RFS
program will be equal to or less than the same types of emissions
attributable to soybean oil. We welcome public comments on all aspects
of our assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Totals may not sum due to rounding. The ``Total'' results
represents our mean estimates, and the ``Low'' and ``High'' results
represent the low and high ends of the 95 percent confidence range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Fuel Production and Distribution

    Jatropha oil is suitable for the same conversion processes as
soybean oil and other previously approved feedstocks for making
biodiesel, renewable diesel, jet fuel, naphtha and liquefied petroleum
gas. In addition, the fuel yield per pound of oil is expected to be
similar for fuel produced from jatropha oil and soybean oil through
these processes. Jatropha may also be suitable for other conversion
processes and types of fuel that EPA has not previously evaluated.
After reviewing comments received in response to this action, we will
combine our evaluation of agricultural sector GHG emissions associated
with the use of jatropha oil feedstock with our evaluation of the GHG
emissions associated with individual producers' production processes
and finished fuels to determine whether any proposed pathway satisfies
CAA lifecycle GHG emissions reduction requirements for RFS-qualifying
renewable fuels. Each biofuel producer seeking to generate RINs for
non-grandfathered volumes of biofuel produced from jatropha oil will
first need to submit a petition requesting EPA's evaluation of their
new renewable fuel pathway pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 of the RFS
regulations, and include all of the information specified at 40 CFR
80.1416(b)(1). Because EPA is evaluating the greenhouse gas emissions
associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil feedstock
through this action and comment process, petitions requesting EPA's
evaluation of biofuel pathways involving jatropha oil feedstock will
not have to include the information for new feedstocks specified at 40
CFR 80.1416(b)(2).\63\ Based on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG
emissions attributable to the production and transport of jatropha oil
feedstock, EPA anticipates that fuel produced from jatropha oil
feedstock through the same transesterification or hydrotreating process
technologies that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel
derived from soybean oil and the March 2013 RFS rule for biofuel
derived from camelina oil would qualify for biomass-based diesel (D-
code 4) RINs or advanced biofuel (D-code 5) RINs.\64\ However, EPA will
evaluate petitions for fuel produced from jatropha oil feedstock on a
case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ For information on how to submit a petition for biofuel
produced from jatropha oil see EPA's Web page titled ``How to Submit
a Complete Petition'' (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/new-pathways/how-to-submit.htm) including the document on that Web
page titled ``How to Prepare a Complete Petition.'' Petitions for
biofuel produced from jatropha oil should include all of the
applicable information outlined in Section 3 of the ``How to Prepare
a Complete Petition'' document, but they do not need to provide the
information outlined in section 3(F)(2) (Information for New
Feedstocks).
    \64\ The transesterification process that EPA evaluated for the
March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil feedstock
is described in section <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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary

    EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions
associated with the production and transport of jatropha oil as a
feedstock for biofuel production. EPA will consider public comments
received when evaluating the lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel
production pathways described in

petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that use jatropha oil as
a feedstock.

    Dated: September 30, 2015.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2015-26039 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P