
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61406-61419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn.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: (202) 564-1372; fax 
number: (202) 564-1177; email address: ramig.christopher@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

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

[[Page 61407]]

     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

[[Page 61408]]

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

[[Page 61409]]

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

[[Page 61410]]

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

[[Page 61411]]

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 2.4.3.1 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

[[Page 61412]]

 
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

[[Page 61413]]

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

[[Page 61414]]

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

[[Page 61415]]

 
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.

[[Page 61416]]

    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

[[Page 61417]]

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.

[[Page 61418]]



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

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

[[Page 61419]]

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

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


