Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Brassica Carinata Oil for Use in Biofuel Production, 22996-23003 [2015-09618]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22996
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices
II. What does this correction do?
FR Doc. 2015–07200 published in the
Federal Register of March 30, 2015 (80
FR 16675) (FRL–9922–79) is corrected
as follows:
1. On page 16676, in Table 1, under
the heading III. Registration Reviews; A.
What action is the Agency taking?,
Table 1—Registration Review Dockets
Opening, column named ‘‘Registration
review case name and No.’’ is corrected
to include in a new line to read:
Forchlorfenuron (Case 7057).
2. On page 16676, in Table 1, under
the heading III. Registration Reviews; A.
What action is the Agency taking?,
Table 1—Registration Review Dockets
Opening, column named ‘‘Pesticide
docket ID No.’’, is corrected to include
in the new line for forchlorfenuron to
read: EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0641.
3. On page 16676, in Table 1, under
the heading III. Registration Reviews; A.
What action is the Agency taking?,
Table 1—Registration Review Dockets
Opening, column named ‘‘Chemical
review manager, telephone number,
email address’’ is corrected to include in
a new line for forchlorfenuron to read:
Wilhelmena Livingston, (703) 308–8025,
livingston.wilhelmena@epa.gov.
4. On page 16676, in the first column,
Table 1, under the heading III.
Registration Reviews; A. What action is
the Agency taking?, paragraph 2, line 5,
to delete the sentence ‘‘For
Forchlorfenuron (Case 7057), EPA is
seeking comment on the Combined
Work Plan, Summary Document, and
Proposed Interim Registration Review
Decision, which includes the human
health and ecological risk assessments.’’
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
Dated: April 10, 2015.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015–09525 Filed 4–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0093–; FRL–9926–80–
OAR]
Notice of Opportunity To Comment on
an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Attributable to Production
and Transport of Brassica Carinata Oil
for Use in Biofuel Production
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In this Notice, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Apr 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
is inviting comment on its analysis of
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
attributable to the production and
transport of Brassica carinata (carinata)
oil feedstock for use in making biofuels
such as biodiesel, renewable diesel, and
jet fuel. This notice explains EPA’s
analysis of the production and transport
components of the lifecycle GHG
emissions of biofuel made from carinata
oil, and describes how EPA may apply
this analysis in the future to determine
whether biofuels produced from
carinata oil meet the necessary GHG
reductions required for qualification as
renewable fuel under the Renewable
Fuel Standard program. Based on this
analysis, we anticipate that biofuels
produced from carinata oil could qualify
as advanced biofuel if typical fuel
production process technology
conditions are used.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2015–0093, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov,
Attention Air and Radiation Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0093.
• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket,
Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0093,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Air
and Radiation Docket, ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2015–0093. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–XXXX–
XXXX. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Shell, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460;
telephone number: 202–564–8479; fax
number: 202–564–1177; email address:
shell.michael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice is organized as follows:
I. Introduction
II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated
with use of Carinata Oil as a Biofuel
Feedstock
A. Feedstock Production
1. Background
2. Volume Potential
3. Indirect Impacts
4. Crop Inputs
5. Potential Invasiveness
6. Crushing and Oil Extraction
B. Feedstock Distribution
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices
C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG
Emissions
D. Fuel Production and Distribution
III. Summary
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
I. Introduction
As part of changes to the Renewable
Fuel Standard (RFS) program
regulations published on March 26,
2010 1 (the ‘‘March 2010 rule’’), EPA
specified the types of renewable fuels
eligible to participate in the RFS
program through approved fuel
pathways. Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 of
the RFS regulations lists three critical
components of an approved fuel
pathway: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock;
and (3) production process. Fuel
produced pursuant to each specific
combination of the three components, or
fuel pathway, is designated in the Table
as eligible for purposes of the Clean Air
Act’s (CAA) requirements for
greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions to
qualify as renewable fuel or one of three
subsets of renewable fuel (biomassbased diesel, cellulosic biofuel, or
advanced biofuel). EPA may also
independently approve additional fuel
pathways not currently listed in Table 1
to 40 CFR 80.1426 for participation in
the RFS program, or a third-party may
petition for EPA to evaluate a new fuel
pathway in accordance with 40 CFR
80.1416.
EPA’s lifecycle analyses are used to
assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel
throughout each stage of its production
and use. The results of these analyses,
considering uncertainty and the weight
of available evidence, are used to
determine whether a fuel meets the
necessary GHG reductions required
under the CAA for it to be considered
renewable fuel or one of three subsets of
renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis
includes an assessment of emissions
related to the full fuel lifecycle,
including feedstock production,
feedstock transportation, fuel
production, fuel transportation and
distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per
the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG
emissions, EPA’s lifecycle analyses also
include an assessment of significant
indirect emissions such as indirect
emissions from land use changes,
agricultural sector impacts, and
production of co-products from biofuel
production.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA
received a petition from Agrisoma
Biosciences Inc. requesting that EPA
evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for
biofuels produced using Brassica
1 See
75 FR 14670.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Apr 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
carinata (carinata) oil,2 and that EPA
provide a determination of the
renewable fuel categories, if any, for
which such biofuels may be eligible. As
an initial step in this process, EPA has
conducted an evaluation of the GHG
emissions associated with the
production and transport of carinata
when it is used as a biofuel feedstock,
and is seeking public comment on the
methodology and results of this
evaluation.
EPA expects to consider comments
received and then use the information to
evaluate petitions received pursuant to
40 CFR 80.1416 that propose to use
carinata oil as a feedstock for the
production of biofuel, and that seek an
EPA determination regarding whether
such biofuels qualify as renewable fuel
under the RFS program. In evaluating
such petitions, EPA will consider the
GHG emissions associated with
petitioners’ biofuel production
processes, as well as emissions
associated with the transport and use of
the finished biofuel, in addition to the
GHG emissions associated with the
production and transport of carinata
feedstock in determining whether
petitioners’ proposed biofuel production
pathway satisfies CAA renewable fuel
lifecycle GHG reduction requirements.
II. Analysis of GHG Emissions
Associated With Use of Carinata Oil as
a Biofuel Feedstock
EPA has evaluated the lifecycle GHG
impacts of using carinata oil as a biofuel
feedstock, based on information
provided in the petition and other data
gathered by EPA. For these analyses, we
used a similar approach to that used for
camelina oil in a rule published on
March 5, 2013 (the ‘‘March 2013 rule’’).3
In that rulemaking, EPA determined that
several renewable fuel pathways using
camelina oil feedstock meet the required
50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold
under the RFS for biomass-based diesel
and advanced biofuel because the GHG
emissions performance of camelinabased fuels is at least as good as that
modeled for fuels made from soybean
oil.
EPA believes that new agricultural
sector modeling is not needed to
evaluate the lifecycle GHG impacts of
using carinata oil as a biofuel feedstock
for purposes of making GHG reduction
threshold determinations for the RFS
program. This is in part because of the
similarities of carinata oil to soybean oil
and camelina oil, and because carinata
is not expected to have significant land
2 For purposes of this notice, the term ‘‘carinata’’
refers to the species Brassica Carinata.
3 78 FR 14190.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22997
use change impacts. Instead of
performing new agricultural sector
modeling, EPA relied upon the soybean
oil analysis conducted for the March
2010 rule to assess the relative GHG
impacts of growing and transporting
carinata oil for use as a biofuel
feedstock. We have looked at every
component of the agricultural sector
GHG emissions from carinata oil
production, including land use change,
crop inputs, crushing and oil extraction,
and feedstock distribution. For each
component, we believe that the GHG
emissions are less than or comparable to
the emissions from the equivalent
component of soybean oil production.
Based on this analysis (described
below), we propose to evaluate the
agricultural sector GHG emissions
impacts of using carinata oil in
responding to petitions received
pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by
assuming that GHG emissions are
similar to those associated with the use
of soybean oil for biofuel production.
We invite comment on this proposed
approach.
A. Feedstock Production
1. Background
Brassica carinata (carinata),
commonly known as ‘‘Ethiopian
mustard’’ or ‘‘Ethiopian rapeseed’’, is an
oilseed crop within the flowering plant
family Brassicaceae and is native to the
Ethiopian highlands.
Carinata oil has high concentrations
of erucic acid which make it less
suitable for food uses but potentially
attractive for biolubricants and
polymers, and other industrial
applications.4 5 It is not used for food in
the United States where more desireable
substitutes are readily available, though
there is a limited amount of use for
dietary purposes in Africa and western
and southern Asia.6 The vast majority of
carinata currently grown in the United
States is in limited field trials to
evaluate its qualities as a feedstock to
produce biofuels. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) does not track
the production or end-uses of carinata
but the petitioner believes 95% of
4 Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinata- a new
molecular farming platform for delivering bioindustrial oil feestocks: case studies of genetic
modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid
and oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts &
Biorefining 4.5: 538–561.
5 Fahd, S. et. al (2010) Energy, Environmental and
Economic Assessment of Non-Food Use of Brassica
Carinata https://www.societalmetabolism.org/
aes2010/Proceeds/DIGITAL%20PROCEEDINGS_
files/POSTERS/P_138_Sandra_Fahd.pdf.
6 Plant Resources of Tropical Africa (PROTA).
PROTA 14: Vegatable Oils Record Display, Brassica
Carinata https://database.prota.org/PROTAhtml/
Brassica%20carinata_En.htm.
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
current carinata research has been for
biofuels with some limited research on
enhanced oil recovery applications.7
Compared to other oilseeds, carinata
seed contains a high oil content (44%)
which means a greater portion of the
feedstock can be converted to biofuel.8
Carinata oil contains longer carbon
chains than other oilseeds, making it
more suited to be broken down for
industrial uses, and long chain fatty
acids make it ideal for biodiesel
production. When grown, carinata
provides multiple benefits as a
biofumigant, serving to suppress disease
7 Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. petition to the EPA,
August 2013.
8 Earlier strains of Brassica carinata have
contained various, lesser oil contents. However,
selective breeding and developments through
transgenics have produced strains with high oil
contents. Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinataa new molecular farming platform for delivering
bio-industrial oil feestocks: case studies of genetic
modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid
and oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts &
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Apr 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
and insects,9 while also controlling
weeds and other soil-borne pests.10
Carinata will most likely be grown in
the U.S. and Canada in semi-arid,
marginal land, as an off-season winter
cover crop in the southeastern U.S., or
on dryland wheat acres during the
period that they would otherwise be left
fallow. In areas with lower
precipitation, dryland wheat farmers
currently leave acres fallow once every
three to four years to allow additional
moisture and nutrients to accumulate
and control pests. Current research
indicates that carinata could be
introduced into this rotation in certain
areas in lieu of fallowing without
adversely impacting moisture or
nutrient accumulation. Land featuring a
carinata rotation can be returned to
wheat cultivation the following year
with moisture and soil nutrients
quantitatively similar to a fallow year.11
Table V.D.–2 illustrates example wheat
and carinata rotations, which are
expected to be very similar to current
wheat/camelina rotation systems.
Biorefining 4.5: 538–561. https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.231/epdf.
9 Warwick (2011) at 49 (citations omitted); see
also I.A. Zasada and H. Ferris (2004), Nematode
suppression with brassicaceous amendments:
application based upon glucosinolate profiles, Soil
Biology & Biochemistry 36:1017–1024.
10 J. Brown and M.J. Morra, GlucosinolateContaining Seed Meal as a Soil Amendment to
Control Plant Pests. 2000–2002, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR–510–
35254, at 15 (2005), available at https://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan, C.
Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G.
Patalano, W. Parker (2010), The Efficacy of
Biofumigant Meals and Plants to Control Wireworm
Populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245–
254.
11 See Shonnard et al., 2010; Lafferty et al., 2009
Long-Term Tillage and Cropping Sequence Effects
on Dryland Residue and Soil Carbon Fractions.
2. Volume Potential
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
EN24AP15.003</GPH>
22998
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices
anticipate demand for carinata oil to be
greater than can be satisfied by available
fallow acres.
According to an industry estimate,
commercial production of carinata in
2012 occurred at over 40 locations
across Saskatchewan and Alberta,
Canada.15 The first commercial
cultivation of carinata in the United
States occurred in Montana in 2013, and
estimates from the original petition
indicated that 100,000 acres would be
planted in 2014.16 Based on a three year
rotation cycle in which only one third
of the 12 million combined U.S. and
Canada wheat acres is typically fallow
in any given year, EPA estimates that at
current average yields (1,865 pounds of
seed per acre, or 820 pounds of oil per
acre), approximately 400 million gallons
(MG) of carinata-based biodiesel could
be produced with carinata grown in
rotation with existing crop acres
(assuming 7.6 pounds of oil produces 1
gallon of biodiesel).17 However, as there
is no commercial market for carinata at
present, when planted, actual acres are
expected to be much smaller and
dedicated to test plots in the near term.
Carinata may expand to other regions
and growing methods in the longer
term.
12 U.S. Wheat Supply and Use. World
Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate
(WASDE), December 2014. USDA https://
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/wasde/
wasde-12-10-2014.pdf.
13 Agrisoma Biosciences Inc., petition to EPA,
August 2013.
14 Johnson, S. and McCormick, M., Camelina: an
Annual Cover Crop Under 40 CFR part 80 Subpart
M, Memorandum, dated November 5, 2010.
15 In the United States, field trials have occurred
or are occurring with the University of Florida,
Colorado State University, Montana State
University, South Dakota University, and North
Dakota State University.
16 Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. Petition to EPA,
August 2013.
17 For biodiesel produced from soybean oil, 7.6
pounds of oil are also needed for one gallon of
biodiesel.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Apr 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Research is ongoing to improve
carinata oil yields, which can be
expected to increase as experience with
growing carinata improves cultivation
practices and the application of existing
technologies are more widely adopted.
For example, yields of over 1,600
pounds of oil per acre have been
achieved on test plots. For the purposes
of this lifecycle GHG analysis, EPA is
assuming the intermediate current yield
of 820 pounds of oil per acre and a
biofuel production volume of 400 MG of
carinata as representing a reasonable
projection of production in 2022.
3. Indirect Impacts
Unlike commodity crops that are
tracked by USDA, carinata does not
have a well-established, internationally
traded market that would be
significantly affected by an increase in
carinata-based biofuels. Based on the
information provided in the petition,
returns on carinata are approximately
$107 per acre, given average yields of
approximately 1,865 pounds per acre
and the current contract price of $0.14
per pound (See Table 2). For
comparison purposes, the USDA
estimates of corn and soybean returns,
including operating costs but not
overhead costs such as hired labor, were
between $206 and $440 per acre in
2013.18 Over time, advancements in
seed technology, improvements in
planting and harvesting techniques, and
18 USDA Economic Research Service, Commodity
Costs and Returns. Available at: https://
www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costsand-returns.aspx.
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
EN24AP15.004</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
As we expect that carinata will
primarily be grown in rotation with
wheat, we based land availability and
projected volumes on estimated wheat
acres. USDA does not systematically
collect carinata production information;
therefore data on historical acreage is
limited. The latest USDA estimates
(December 2014) report approximately
57 million acres of wheat in the U.S.12
USDA and wheat state cooperative
extension reports through 2008
indicated that 83% of domestic wheat
production was under non-irrigated,
dryland conditions, and that at least
45% of those acres were estimated to
follow a wheat/fallow rotation. Thus,
approximately 21 million acres are
potentially suitable for carinata
production. However, according to an
industry projection 13 based on an
estimate for camelina, only about nine
million of these wheat/fallow acres have
the appropriate climate, soil profile, and
market access for carinata production.14
Further, the petitioner projects another
three million acres of fallow land in
wheat rotation are potentially available
for carinata production in Canada.
Based on our calculations of the
potential biodiesel production from
carinata, as described below, we do not
22999
23000
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices
changes in input usage could
significantly increase future carinata
yields and returns, but it is unlikely the
returns to farmers from carinata will
ever compete with the returns from
corn, soybeans or other widely traded
commodity crops. In addition, because
carinata is expected to be grown on
fallow land, it will not impact other
commodities through land competition.
For these reasons, EPA has determined
that, unlike a crop such as soybean,
production of carinata-based biofuels is
not expected to have a significant
impact on other agricultural commodity
markets and consequently would not
result in significant indirect impacts
including indirect land use changes.
TABLE 2—CARINATA COSTS AND RETURNS, PER ACRE 19
Inputs
Rates
Herbicides:
Glysophate (Fall) .......................................................
Glysophate (Spring) ...................................................
Post ............................................................................
Seed:
Carinata seed ............................................................
Fertilizer:
Nitrogen Fertilizer ......................................................
Phosphate Fertilizer ...................................................
2022 Carinata
16 oz. ( $0.39/oz) ............................................................
16 oz. ( $0.39/oz) ............................................................
12 oz ( $0.67/oz) .............................................................
$7.00.
$7.00.
$8.00.
$.44/lb ..............................................................................
$7.20 (5 lbs/acre).
$1/lb .................................................................................
$1/lb .................................................................................
$60.00 (60 lb/acre).
$30.00 (30 lb/acre).
Sub-Total:
..........................................................................................
$ 119.20.
Logistics:
Planting Trip ..............................................................
Harvest & Hauling .....................................................
..........................................................................................
..........................................................................................
$10.00.
$25.00.
Total Cost ...........................................................
..........................................................................................
$154.20.
Yields .........................................................................
Price ...........................................................................
Total Revenue .............................................
Returns ........................................................
lbs/ac ...............................................................................
$/lb ...................................................................................
..........................................................................................
..........................................................................................
1865.
$0.14.
$261.10.
$106.90.
Althoughwe expect most carinata
used as a renewable fuel feedstock for
the RFS program would be grown in the
U.S. and Canada, we expect that
carinata grown in other countries would
also not have a significant impact on
other agricultural commodity markets
and would therefore not result in
significant indirect GHG emissions.
4. Crop Inputs
As part of our analysis of the GHG
impacts from growing carinata, we
compared crop inputs for carinata to
those for soybeans. Inputs compared
include nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus
fertilizer, herbicide, diesel, and
gasoline.20 We also looked at the nitrous
oxide (N2O) emissions from both the
nitrogen fertilizer inputs and the crop
residues associated with carinata.21
Current literature suggests a range of
fertilizer inputs are considered
appropriate for growing carinata. The
petitioner provided guidance of 60 lbs
per acre of nitrogen fertilizer and 30 lbs
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
19 Nitrogen
and Phosphate inputs here are based
on application rates from test plots. Different
combinations of the range of fertilizer inputs we
considered may results in higher or lower estimates.
Data provided by Agrisoma Biosciences Inc.
petition to EPA, August 2013.
20 Diesel and gasoline used for planting and
harvesting. These values assume that no irrigation
is needed.
21 The IPCC equations for N O emissions were
2
updated since our earlier analysis of soybeans. We
use the updated equations for our calculations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Apr 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
per acre of phosphorus fertilizer based
on application rates for test plots
featuring continuous cropping systems,
which require more intensive
fertilizing.22 We expect that carinata
will be grown in fallow rotation with
other crops, which will require lesser
fertilizer amounts, comparable to those
for camelina.23 Those amounts for
camelina are 40 lbs per acre of nitrogen
fertilizer and 15 lbs per acre of
phosphorous fertilizer.24 Other research
has shown higher carinata growth rates
with higher rates of nitrogen
applications, but there is not consensus
on an optimal rate. Therefore, as a
conservative estimate we provide a
high-end estimate of 80 lbs per acre of
nitrogen fertilizer. Further, the
petitioner did not recommend
potassium fertilizer for carinata
production as they assume that the land
carinata would be grown on has high
potassium levels that would not require
augmentation. As a conservative
22 Petition from Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. to
EPA, August 2013.
23 Cover crops, such as carinata and camelina,
require less fertilizer input in a fallow rotation than
they might if they were in a dedicated system as
there is residual soil nutrients from the primary
crop.
24 78 FR 14190. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Identification of Additional Qualifying
Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable
Fuel Standard Program, available at: https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR_2013_03_05/pdf/
2013_04929.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
estimate, we assume potassium
application rates assumed for camelina
as a high input (10 lbs per acre). Given
the range of estimates, Table 3 shows a
range of input assumptions for carinata
production, compared to the Forest and
Agricultural Sector Optimization Model
(FASOM) agricultural input
assumptions for soybeans, which were
used in our assessment of soybeans for
the March 2010 rule. From the March
2010 rule, we used soybean projected
yields for 2022 of 1,500 to 3,000 lbs of
seed per acre. For carinata, we used
projected 2022 yields of 1,865 lbs of
seed per acre.25
Carinata has a higher percentage of oil
per pound of seed than soybeans.
Soybeans are approximately 18% oil by
mass, therefore crushing one pound of
soybeans yields 0.18 pounds of oil. In
comparison, carinata seeds can contain
up to 44% oil.26 The difference in oil
25 Average yield from a series of research plots
explored by the petitioner. Other studies show a
range of yields with various nitrogen and seed
spacing applications. One such study showed a
yield from ranging from 552 to 2434 lbs of seed/
acre. We believe an assumed yield of 1,865 lbs of
seed per acre is appropriate.
Pan, X. et al (2012) The effect of cultivar, seeding
rate and applied nitrogen on Brassica carinata seed
yield and quality in contrasting environments.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 92: 961–971,
available at: https://pubs.aic.ca/doi/pdf/10.4141/
cjps2011_169.
26 Getinet, A. et al (1996) Agronomic performance
and seed quality of Ethiopian mustard in
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
23001
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices
yield was taken into account when
calculating the emissions per ton of
feedstock oil included in Table 3. As
shown in Table 3, lifecycle GHG
emissions from feedstock production for
carinata and soybeans are relatively
similar when factoring in variations in
oil yields per acre and fertilizer,
herbicide, pesticide, and petroleum
use.27
TABLE 3—INPUTS FOR CARINATA AND SOYBEAN PRODUCTION FOR PROJECTED 2022 YIELDS 28
Carinata
Soybeans (varies by region)
Inputs
(per acre)
N20 .................................................
Nitrogen Fertilizer ...........................
Phosphorus Fertilizer .....................
Potassium Fertilizer .......................
Herbicide ........................................
Pesticide .........................................
Diesel .............................................
Gasoline .........................................
Total ........................................
Emissions
(per ton carinata oil)
Inputs
(per acre)
N/A .........................
40–80 lbs ...............
15–30 lbs ...............
0–10 lbs .................
2.75–2.75 lbs .........
0–0 lbs ...................
3.5–3.5 gal .............
0–0 gal ...................
................................
584–869 kg CO2eq ...........
160–321 kg CO2eq ...........
21–41 kg CO2eq ...............
0–9 kg CO2eq ...................
79–79 kg CO2eq ...............
0–0 kg CO2eq ...................
107–107.1 kg CO2eq ........
0–0 kg CO2eq ...................
950–1426 kg CO2eq .........
N/A .........................
3.5–8.2 lbs .............
5.4–21.4 lbs ...........
3.1–24.3 lbs ...........
0.0–1.3 lbs .............
0.1–0.8 lbs .............
3.8–8.9 gal .............
1.6–3.0 gal .............
................................
5. Potential Invasiveness
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Carinata is not listed on theFederal
noxious weed list.29 In a USDA
document listing state noxious-weed
seed requirements, twenty states
include restrictions for unspecified
species of the Brassica genus, indicating
limitations on the use of the plant.
Although other species of Brassica are
specified in some states, the carinata
species is not explicitly identified.30
Regarding invasiveness, an evaluation of
carinata in Canada by the Roundtable on
Sustainable Biofuels concluded that
invasiveness potential is deemed to be
low and not difficult to remedy, if
remedy is needed.31 A weed risk
assessment by USDA found that carinata
poses a moderate weed risk potential
and concluded that carinata should
undergo further evaluation.32 Unlike
some other biofuel feedstocks evaluated
under the RFS program for invasiveness,
USDA did not find strong evidence of
carinata causing impacts in
anthropogenic (e.g., cities, suburbs,
roadways), production (e.g., agriculture,
nurseries, forest plantations, orchards),
or natural systems. However, there is a
high level of uncertainty regarding
carinata’s spread and impact potential
due to incomplete knowledge about its
traits. This uncertainty raises concerns
about the threat of invasiveness and
may require remediation activities that
Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science.
76. 387–392, available at: https://pubs.aic.ca/doi/
pdf/10.4141/cjps96_069.
27 For more details on the greenhouse gas
emissions associated with agricultural inputs, see
‘‘Carinata data and calculations—for docket’’ on
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0093.
28 Based on communication with USDA, sulfur
can also be a beneficial fertilizer component for
oilseeds such as carinata and soybeans, dependent
on local soil characteristics, at application rates of
up to 10–20 lbs/acre. There are multiple options for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Apr 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
Emissions
(per ton soybean oil)
449.0–661.1 kg CO2eq.
23.2–79.1 kg CO2eq.
13.5–64.8 kg CO2eq.
5.3–48.5 kg CO2eq.
2.4–69.6 kg CO2eq.
12.4–50.2 kg CO2eq.
227.9–622.3 kg CO2eq.
93–151.4 kg CO2eq
961–1443 kg CO2eq.
6. Crushing and Oil Extraction
EPA evaluated the seed crushing and
oil extraction process and compared the
lifecycle GHG emissions from this stage
for soybean oil and carinata oil. EPA
assumed the processing of carinata
would be similar to soybeans, canola,
and camelina. Because carinata seeds
produce more oil per pound than
soybeans, the lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with crushing and oil
extraction are lower for carinata than
soybeans per pound of feedstock oil
produced.
There is not a significant amount of
industry data on energy used for
crushing and oil extraction of carinata.
Based on data provided in the petition
submitted, and EPA’s standard
emissions factors for electricity and
natural gas, we estimate that the GHG
emissions from crushing and oil
extraction are 92 kgCO2e/ton carinata
oil. For comparison, in the analysis for
the March 2010 final rule, the GHG
emissions from crushing and oil
extraction were estimated to be 426
kgCO2e/ton soybean oil. As a
conservative estimate, we propose to
assume that the GHG emissions related
to crushing and oil extraction are the
same for carinata as for soybeans.
Similar to soybeans, a press cake is
also produced when carinata is crushed
and the oil is extracted. Little is known
at this time about the possible beneficial
use of carinata cake. Carinata press cake
contains glucosinolates, which may be
toxic to animals in large
concentrations.33 However, the heat
produced from crushing carinata seeds
sulfur application as part of a liquid or dry granular
mixture that also contain phosphorous and
nitrogen. The emissions for fertilizer rates provided
in Table 3 capture the likely range of impacts
associated with the variety of application options,
including ones containing sulfur.
29 USDA, Federal Noxious Weed List, https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/
weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf.
30 USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service State
Noxious-Weed Seed Requirements Recognized in
the Administration of the Federal Seed Act, 2014,
https://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/
getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5090172.
31 SCS Global Services, Certification Evaluation
Report, Roundtable on Sustainable Biomass, https://
rsb.org/pdfs/reports/RSB_PGF-Biofuel_
SummaryRPT_InitialEvaluation111513.pdf.
32 USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica
carinata A. Braun (Brassicaceae) –Ethiopian
mustard, 2014.
33 USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica
carinata A. Braun (Brassicaceae)—Ethiopian
mustard. 2014.
would cause additional GHG emissions.
Because carinata does not pose as great
an invasiveness risk as Arundo donax
and Pennisetum purpureum, EPA
believes that monitoring and reporting
requirements similar to those for
Arundo donax and Pennisetum
purpureum would be appropriate, but
does not expect to apply all of the Risk
Management Plan (RMP) requirements
that exist for those feedstocks. We
would expect to impose monitoring and
reporting requirements similar to 40
CFR 80.1450 (b)(1)(x)(A)(1)(i), (ii), (iii),
and (v) and 80.1450 (b)(1)(x)(A)(3), (4),
(5), and (7). In addition, a letter
documenting the feedstock grower’s
compliance with all of the relevant
federal, state, regional, and local
requirements related to invasive species
would be required. With these
requirements in place, we would
assume that there are no GHG emissions
associated with potential invasiveness
when carinata is used as a biofuel
feedstock. EPA is taking comment on
the invasiveness concerns of carinata
and the appropriateness of the
referenced requirements in mitigating
those concerns.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
23002
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices
may reduce the toxicity of the press
cake, or carinata press cake could be
mixed in low amounts with other seed
meal for use as animal feed.34
Alternatively, carinata press cake could
be used as a biofumigant.35 In our
modeling of soybean oil for the March
2010 RFS rule, the FASOM and FAPRI–
CARD models included the use of the
soy meal (sometimes referred to as press
cake) co-product as livestock feed. In
our modeling, the use of soy meal as
livestock feed displaced the need for
other similar feed products and
therefore impacted the relative prices
and production of crop and livestock
products. These crop and livestock
impacts were reflected in the land use
change, livestock, and agricultural
sector GHG emissions impacts estimated
for biofuels produced from soybean oil.
Although EPA modeling results did not
isolate the GHG impacts of the soy meal
co-product, we believe that overall the
soy meal co-product lowered the GHG
emissions associated with soybean oilbased biofuels. Similarly, we believe
that any use of the carinata press cake
would provide an additional benefit
(i.e., lower GHG emissions) not reflected
in our lifecycle GHG emissions analysis
of carinata oil. Based on our analysis of
carinata oil, which does not consider
use of the press cake, we have found
that the agricultural, livestock, and land
use change emissions associated with
producing carinata oil are less than or
equal to the corresponding emissions
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
34 Carinata
meal (solvent extracted) is approved
for feed use at quantities up to 10% of total diet
dry matter in Canada by the Candian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA). Letter from W.
Gwayumba, Ph.D. sent to EPA in email from Sandra
Franco on July 9, 2014. The Brassica genus (not
carinata explicitly) is approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) through a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the
Association of American Feed Control Officials
(AAFCO) U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Memorandum of Understanding Between The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and The Association
of American Feed Control Officials (MOU 225–07–
7001) https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/
PartnershipsCollaborations/
MemorandaofUnderstandingMOUs/
DomesticMOUs/ucm115778.htm. It is important to
note that all animal feed products must be approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
before they can be sold in the United States.
Nothing in EPA’s analysis should be construed as
an official federal government position regarding
the approval or disapproval of carinata press cake
as an animal feed. Only FDA is authorized to make
that determination.
35 J. Brown and M.J. Morra, GlucosinolateContaining Seed Meal as a Soil Amendment to
Control Plant Pests. 2000–2002, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR–510–
35254, at 15 (2005), available at https://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan, C.
Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G.
Patalano, W. Parker (2010), The efficacy of
biofumigant meals and plants to control wireworm
populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245–
254.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Apr 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
associated with producing soybean oil.
Therefore, any beneficial use of the
carinata press cake (e.g., as livestock
feed or boiler fuel) would only serve to
lower the GHG emissions associated
with carinata oil relative to the
corresponding emissions for soybean
oil.
B. Feedstock Distribution
EPA’s assessment, based on the
following reasoning, is that GHG
emissions from feedstock distribution
will be the same for carinata as such
emissions for soybeans. Because
carinata contains more oil per pound of
seed, as discussed above, the energy
needed to move the carinata before oil
extraction would be lower than
soybeans per gallon of oil produced. To
the extent that carinata is grown on
more disperse fallow land than
soybeans and would need to be
transported further, the energy needed
to move the carinata could be higher
than soybeans. Therefore, we believe we
may assume for purposes of GHG
emissions assessment that the GHG
emissions associated with transporting
carinata and soybeans to crushing
facilities will be the same. Carinata and
soybean oils are similar in terms of
density and energy content; therefore,
we also assumed that the GHG
emissions from transporting the oil from
a crushing facility to a biofuel
production facility would be the same
for the two different feedstocks.
C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG
Emissions
Compared to soybean oil, carinata oil
has comparable GHG emissions per ton
of oil from crop inputs and crushing and
oil extraction, and lower GHG emissions
per ton of oil from direct and indirect
land use change. Carinata and soybean
oils are also likely to have similar GHG
emissions from feedstock distribution.
Therefore, we believe that the feedstock
production and transport portion of the
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with
carinata are likely to be similar to or less
than the GHG emissions for the
corresponding portion of the lifecycle
analysis for soybean oil. EPA’s purpose
in evaluating petitions under 40 CFR
80.1416 is not to prepare a precise
lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of
every fuel type, but to gather sufficient
information on which to inform its
decision of whether proposed biofuels
qualify under the program in terms of
lifecycle GHG emissions reduction.
Based on our comparison of carinata oil
to soybean oil, EPA proposes to use, in
its future evaluations of petitions
seeking to use carinata oil as a feedstock
for biofuel production, an estimate of
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the GHG emissions associated with the
cultivation and transport of carinata oil
that is the same as that which we have
used for soybean oil, on a per ton of oil
basis. Although EPA could conduct a
more detailed analysis, we do not belive
it is necessary for purposes of the
determinations EPA must make in
responding to petitions. EPA solicits
comment on this proposed approach.
D. Fuel Production and Distribution
Carinata oil has physical properties
that are similar to soybean and camelina
oil, and is suitable for the same
conversion processes as these
feedstocks. In addition, the fuel yield
per pound of oil is expected to be the
same for each of these feedstocks. After
reviewing comments received in
response to this Notice, we will
combine our evaluation of agricultural
sector GHG emissions associated with
the use of carinata oil feedstock with
our evaluation of the GHG emissions
associated with individual producers’
production processes and finished fuels
to determine whether the proposed
pathways satisfy CAA lifecycle GHG
emissions reduction requirements for
RFS-qualifying renewable fuels. Based
on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG
emissions attributable to the production
and transport of carinata oil feedstock,
EPA anticipates that fuel produced from
carinata oil feedstock through the same
transesterification or hydrotreating
process technologies that EPA evaluated
for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel
derived from soybean oil and the March
2013 RFS rule for biofuel derived from
camelina oil would qualify for biomassbased diesel (D-code 4) RINs or
advanced (D-code 5) RINs.36 However,
EPA will evaluate petitions for fuel
produced from carinata oil feedstock on
a case-by-case basis.
III. Summary
EPA invites public comment on its
analysis of GHG emissions associated
with the production and transport of
carinata oil as a feedstock for biofuel
production. EPA will consider public
comments received when evaluating the
lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel
production pathways described in
petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416 which use carinata oil as a
feedstock.
36 The transesterification process that EPA
evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel
derived from soybean oil feedstock is described in
section 2.4.7.3 (Biodiesel) of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA–420–
R–10–006). The hydrotreating process that EPA
evaluated for the March 2013 rule for biofuel
derived from camelina oil feedstock is described in
section II.A.3.b of the March 2013 rule (78 FR
14190).
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices
Dated: April 17, 2015.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.
[FR Doc. 2015–09618 Filed 4–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Change in Bank Control Notices;
Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or
Bank Holding Company
The notificants listed below have
applied under the Change in Bank
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and
§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12
CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank
or bank holding company. The factors
that are considered in acting on the
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of
the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices
also will be available for inspection at
the offices of the Board of Governors.
Interested persons may express their
views in writing to the Reserve Bank
indicated for that notice or to the offices
of the Board of Governors. Comments
must be received not later than May 11,
2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice
President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas
City, Missouri 64198–0001:
1. R. Dean Phillips, Las Vegas,
Nevada; to acquire voting shares of West
Point Bancorp, Inc., and thereby
indirectly acquire voting shares of F &
M Bank, both in West Point, Nebraska;
and Town & Country Bank, Las Vegas,
Nevada.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, April 21, 2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015–09561 Filed 4–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Notice–PM–2015–02; Docket No. 2015–
0002; Sequence No. 6]
Notice of Availability for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for
the U.S. Department of State Foreign
Affairs Security Training Center in
Nottoway County, Virginia
General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Apr 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
Pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations
implementing the procedural provisions
of the National Environmental Policy
Act, GSA has prepared and filed with
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) a Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed
development of a U.S. Department of
State (DOS), Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (DS), Foreign Affairs Security
Training Center (FASTC) in Nottoway
County, Virginia. GSA is the lead
agency; cooperating agencies are DOS,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and
National Guard Bureau. The Final EIS
also documents compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) of 1966.
DATES: The Final EIS is now available
for review. The GSA Record of Decision
will be released no sooner than 30 days
after EPA publishes its Notice of
Availability of the Final EIS in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS may be
viewed online at https://www.state.gov/
recovery/fastc. Paper copies may be
viewed at the repositories listed under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abigail Low, GSA Project Manager; 20
N 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107;
215–446–4815; or email FASTC.info@
gsa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The purpose of the
proposed FASTC site in Nottoway
County is to consolidate existing
dispersed ‘‘hard skills’’ security training
functions to provide effective, efficient
training specifically designed to enable
foreign affairs personnel to operate in
today’s perilous and dangerous overseas
environment. Hard skills training is
practical, hands-on training in firearms,
explosives, anti-terrorism driving
techniques, defensive tactics, and
security operations. Such training
improves security and life safety for the
protection of U.S. personnel operating
abroad. The proposed FASTC would fill
a critical need, identified in the 2008
report to the U.S. Congress, for a
consolidated training facility. A central
facility would improve training
efficiency and provide priority access to
training venues from which DS may
effectively conduct hard skills training
to meet the increased demand for welltrained personnel. The proposed FASTC
would train 8,000 to 10,000 students
annually.
The Final EIS was prepared to
evaluate the environmental
consequences of site acquisition and
development of FASTC on three
adjacent land parcels at the Virginia
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23003
Army National Guard Maneuver
Training Center Fort Pickett (Fort
Pickett) and Nottoway County’s Local
Redevelopment Authority (LRA) area in
Nottoway County, Virginia.
The proposed site is 1,350 acres with
an additional 12 acres for relocation of
an existing tank trail and scheduled use
of a 19 acre Fort Pickett range. The site
is surrounded by compatible land uses
within Fort Pickett. The total area of
disturbance for construction of driving
tracks, mock urban environments,
explosives and firearms ranges, and
administrative and service areas would
be 407 acres. Utilities would be
installed or relocated along existing
roadways or within areas planned for
development.
GSA published its Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS in the Federal Register
at 76 FR 61360 on October 4, 2011. A
public scoping meeting was held in
October 2011 during the 30 day public
scoping period. The Draft EIS was
released on October 26, 2012, and a
public information meeting was held on
November 7, 2012 during the 45-day
public comment period. The Draft EIS
evaluated Build Alternatives 1 and 2
and the No Action Alternative.
In early 2013, all efforts and work on
the proposed site at Fort Pickett and
Nottoway County’s LRA area were put
on hold pending additional due
diligence and reviews at an existing
federal training site in Georgia. As part
of this due diligence effort, DOS
conducted site visits to the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center in Glynco,
Georgia. During this time period, DOS
also assessed the scope and size of the
FASTC project and determined a
smaller platform was more fiscally
prudent. In April 2014, the earlier DOS
selection of the proposed site for FASTC
at Fort Pickett and Nottoway County
was reaffirmed by the Administration. A
Master Plan Update was prepared in
2014 to incorporate the adjustments in
the FASTC program.
A Supplemental Draft EIS was
published in the Federal Register at 80
FR 8311 on January 9, 2015, and a
public information meeting was held
January 26, 2015, during the 45-day
public comment period. The
Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated Build
Alternative 3 and the No Action
Alternative, and provided responses to
public comments on the 2012 Draft EIS.
Build Alternative 3 was developed
based on the 2014 Master Plan Update.
Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were no
longer feasible because of changes in the
program and were eliminated from
further evaluation.
Current Efforts: The Final EIS
designates Build Alternative 3 as the
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22996-23003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09618]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093-; FRL-9926-80-OAR]
Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Brassica
Carinata Oil for Use in Biofuel Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
inviting comment on its analysis of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
attributable to the production and transport of Brassica carinata
(carinata) oil feedstock for use in making biofuels such as biodiesel,
renewable diesel, and jet fuel. This notice explains EPA's analysis of
the production and transport components of the lifecycle GHG emissions
of biofuel made from carinata oil, and describes how EPA may apply this
analysis in the future to determine whether biofuels produced from
carinata oil meet the necessary GHG reductions required for
qualification as renewable fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard
program. Based on this analysis, we anticipate that biofuels produced
from carinata oil could qualify as advanced biofuel if typical fuel
production process technology conditions are used.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0093, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Air and Radiation
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093.
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0093, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention
Air and Radiation Docket, ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
XXXX-XXXX. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and
Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Shell, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone
number: 202-564-8479; fax number: 202-564-1177; email address:
shell.michael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice is organized as follows:
I. Introduction
II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated with use of Carinata Oil as
a Biofuel Feedstock
A. Feedstock Production
1. Background
2. Volume Potential
3. Indirect Impacts
4. Crop Inputs
5. Potential Invasiveness
6. Crushing and Oil Extraction
B. Feedstock Distribution
[[Page 22997]]
C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG Emissions
D. Fuel Production and Distribution
III. Summary
I. Introduction
As part of changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program
regulations published on March 26, 2010 \1\ (the ``March 2010 rule''),
EPA specified the types of renewable fuels eligible to participate in
the RFS program through approved fuel pathways. Table 1 to 40 CFR
80.1426 of the RFS regulations lists three critical components of an
approved fuel pathway: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; and (3) production
process. Fuel produced pursuant to each specific combination of the
three components, or fuel pathway, is designated in the Table as
eligible for purposes of the Clean Air Act's (CAA) requirements for
greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions to qualify as renewable fuel or one of
three subsets of renewable fuel (biomass-based diesel, cellulosic
biofuel, or advanced biofuel). EPA may also independently approve
additional fuel pathways not currently listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR
80.1426 for participation in the RFS program, or a third-party may
petition for EPA to evaluate a new fuel pathway in accordance with 40
CFR 80.1416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 75 FR 14670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts
of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results
of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available
evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG
reductions required under the CAA for it to be considered renewable
fuel or one of three subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis
includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle,
including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel
production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe
emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's
lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect
emissions such as indirect emissions from land use changes,
agricultural sector impacts, and production of co-products from biofuel
production.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA received a petition from Agrisoma
Biosciences Inc. requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG
emissions for biofuels produced using Brassica carinata (carinata)
oil,\2\ and that EPA provide a determination of the renewable fuel
categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be eligible. As an
initial step in this process, EPA has conducted an evaluation of the
GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of carinata
when it is used as a biofuel feedstock, and is seeking public comment
on the methodology and results of this evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For purposes of this notice, the term ``carinata'' refers to
the species Brassica Carinata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA expects to consider comments received and then use the
information to evaluate petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416
that propose to use carinata oil as a feedstock for the production of
biofuel, and that seek an EPA determination regarding whether such
biofuels qualify as renewable fuel under the RFS program. In evaluating
such petitions, EPA will consider the GHG emissions associated with
petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as emissions
associated with the transport and use of the finished biofuel, in
addition to the GHG emissions associated with the production and
transport of carinata feedstock in determining whether petitioners'
proposed biofuel production pathway satisfies CAA renewable fuel
lifecycle GHG reduction requirements.
II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Use of Carinata Oil as a
Biofuel Feedstock
EPA has evaluated the lifecycle GHG impacts of using carinata oil
as a biofuel feedstock, based on information provided in the petition
and other data gathered by EPA. For these analyses, we used a similar
approach to that used for camelina oil in a rule published on March 5,
2013 (the ``March 2013 rule'').\3\ In that rulemaking, EPA determined
that several renewable fuel pathways using camelina oil feedstock meet
the required 50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold under the RFS for
biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel because the GHG emissions
performance of camelina-based fuels is at least as good as that modeled
for fuels made from soybean oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 78 FR 14190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that new agricultural sector modeling is not needed to
evaluate the lifecycle GHG impacts of using carinata oil as a biofuel
feedstock for purposes of making GHG reduction threshold determinations
for the RFS program. This is in part because of the similarities of
carinata oil to soybean oil and camelina oil, and because carinata is
not expected to have significant land use change impacts. Instead of
performing new agricultural sector modeling, EPA relied upon the
soybean oil analysis conducted for the March 2010 rule to assess the
relative GHG impacts of growing and transporting carinata oil for use
as a biofuel feedstock. We have looked at every component of the
agricultural sector GHG emissions from carinata oil production,
including land use change, crop inputs, crushing and oil extraction,
and feedstock distribution. For each component, we believe that the GHG
emissions are less than or comparable to the emissions from the
equivalent component of soybean oil production. Based on this analysis
(described below), we propose to evaluate the agricultural sector GHG
emissions impacts of using carinata oil in responding to petitions
received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by assuming that GHG emissions are
similar to those associated with the use of soybean oil for biofuel
production. We invite comment on this proposed approach.
A. Feedstock Production
1. Background
Brassica carinata (carinata), commonly known as ``Ethiopian
mustard'' or ``Ethiopian rapeseed'', is an oilseed crop within the
flowering plant family Brassicaceae and is native to the Ethiopian
highlands.
Carinata oil has high concentrations of erucic acid which make it
less suitable for food uses but potentially attractive for
biolubricants and polymers, and other industrial
applications.4 5 It is not used for food in the United
States where more desireable substitutes are readily available, though
there is a limited amount of use for dietary purposes in Africa and
western and southern Asia.\6\ The vast majority of carinata currently
grown in the United States is in limited field trials to evaluate its
qualities as a feedstock to produce biofuels. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) does not track the production or end-uses of
carinata but the petitioner believes 95% of
[[Page 22998]]
current carinata research has been for biofuels with some limited
research on enhanced oil recovery applications.\7\ Compared to other
oilseeds, carinata seed contains a high oil content (44%) which means a
greater portion of the feedstock can be converted to biofuel.\8\
Carinata oil contains longer carbon chains than other oilseeds, making
it more suited to be broken down for industrial uses, and long chain
fatty acids make it ideal for biodiesel production. When grown,
carinata provides multiple benefits as a biofumigant, serving to
suppress disease and insects,\9\ while also controlling weeds and other
soil-borne pests.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinata- a new molecular
farming platform for delivering bio-industrial oil feestocks: case
studies of genetic modifications to improve very long-chain fatty
acid and oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining
4.5: 538-561.
\5\ Fahd, S. et. al (2010) Energy, Environmental and Economic
Assessment of Non-Food Use of Brassica Carinata https://www.societalmetabolism.org/aes2010/Proceeds/DIGITAL%20PROCEEDINGS_files/POSTERS/P_138_Sandra_Fahd.pdf.
\6\ Plant Resources of Tropical Africa (PROTA). PROTA 14:
Vegatable Oils Record Display, Brassica Carinata https://database.prota.org/PROTAhtml/Brassica%20carinata_En.htm.
\7\ Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. petition to the EPA, August 2013.
\8\ Earlier strains of Brassica carinata have contained various,
lesser oil contents. However, selective breeding and developments
through transgenics have produced strains with high oil contents.
Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinata- a new molecular farming
platform for delivering bio-industrial oil feestocks: case studies
of genetic modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid and
oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 4.5: 538-
561. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.231/epdf.
\9\ Warwick (2011) at 49 (citations omitted); see also I.A.
Zasada and H. Ferris (2004), Nematode suppression with brassicaceous
amendments: application based upon glucosinolate profiles, Soil
Biology & Biochemistry 36:1017-1024.
\10\ J. Brown and M.J. Morra, Glucosinolate-Containing Seed Meal
as a Soil Amendment to Control Plant Pests. 2000-2002, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-510-35254, at 15 (2005),
available at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan,
C. Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G. Patalano, W.
Parker (2010), The Efficacy of Biofumigant Meals and Plants to
Control Wireworm Populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245-
254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Volume Potential
Carinata will most likely be grown in the U.S. and Canada in semi-
arid, marginal land, as an off-season winter cover crop in the
southeastern U.S., or on dryland wheat acres during the period that
they would otherwise be left fallow. In areas with lower precipitation,
dryland wheat farmers currently leave acres fallow once every three to
four years to allow additional moisture and nutrients to accumulate and
control pests. Current research indicates that carinata could be
introduced into this rotation in certain areas in lieu of fallowing
without adversely impacting moisture or nutrient accumulation. Land
featuring a carinata rotation can be returned to wheat cultivation the
following year with moisture and soil nutrients quantitatively similar
to a fallow year.\11\ Table V.D.-2 illustrates example wheat and
carinata rotations, which are expected to be very similar to current
wheat/camelina rotation systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Shonnard et al., 2010; Lafferty et al., 2009 Long-Term
Tillage and Cropping Sequence Effects on Dryland Residue and Soil
Carbon Fractions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24AP15.003
[[Page 22999]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24AP15.004
As we expect that carinata will primarily be grown in rotation with
wheat, we based land availability and projected volumes on estimated
wheat acres. USDA does not systematically collect carinata production
information; therefore data on historical acreage is limited. The
latest USDA estimates (December 2014) report approximately 57 million
acres of wheat in the U.S.\12\ USDA and wheat state cooperative
extension reports through 2008 indicated that 83% of domestic wheat
production was under non-irrigated, dryland conditions, and that at
least 45% of those acres were estimated to follow a wheat/fallow
rotation. Thus, approximately 21 million acres are potentially suitable
for carinata production. However, according to an industry projection
\13\ based on an estimate for camelina, only about nine million of
these wheat/fallow acres have the appropriate climate, soil profile,
and market access for carinata production.\14\ Further, the petitioner
projects another three million acres of fallow land in wheat rotation
are potentially available for carinata production in Canada. Based on
our calculations of the potential biodiesel production from carinata,
as described below, we do not anticipate demand for carinata oil to be
greater than can be satisfied by available fallow acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Wheat Supply and Use. World Agricultural Supply and
Demand Estimate (WASDE), December 2014. USDA https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/wasde/wasde-12-10-2014.pdf.
\13\ Agrisoma Biosciences Inc., petition to EPA, August 2013.
\14\ Johnson, S. and McCormick, M., Camelina: an Annual Cover
Crop Under 40 CFR part 80 Subpart M, Memorandum, dated November 5,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an industry estimate, commercial production of
carinata in 2012 occurred at over 40 locations across Saskatchewan and
Alberta, Canada.\15\ The first commercial cultivation of carinata in
the United States occurred in Montana in 2013, and estimates from the
original petition indicated that 100,000 acres would be planted in
2014.\16\ Based on a three year rotation cycle in which only one third
of the 12 million combined U.S. and Canada wheat acres is typically
fallow in any given year, EPA estimates that at current average yields
(1,865 pounds of seed per acre, or 820 pounds of oil per acre),
approximately 400 million gallons (MG) of carinata-based biodiesel
could be produced with carinata grown in rotation with existing crop
acres (assuming 7.6 pounds of oil produces 1 gallon of biodiesel).\17\
However, as there is no commercial market for carinata at present, when
planted, actual acres are expected to be much smaller and dedicated to
test plots in the near term. Carinata may expand to other regions and
growing methods in the longer term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In the United States, field trials have occurred or are
occurring with the University of Florida, Colorado State University,
Montana State University, South Dakota University, and North Dakota
State University.
\16\ Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. Petition to EPA, August 2013.
\17\ For biodiesel produced from soybean oil, 7.6 pounds of oil
are also needed for one gallon of biodiesel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research is ongoing to improve carinata oil yields, which can be
expected to increase as experience with growing carinata improves
cultivation practices and the application of existing technologies are
more widely adopted. For example, yields of over 1,600 pounds of oil
per acre have been achieved on test plots. For the purposes of this
lifecycle GHG analysis, EPA is assuming the intermediate current yield
of 820 pounds of oil per acre and a biofuel production volume of 400 MG
of carinata as representing a reasonable projection of production in
2022.
3. Indirect Impacts
Unlike commodity crops that are tracked by USDA, carinata does not
have a well-established, internationally traded market that would be
significantly affected by an increase in carinata-based biofuels. Based
on the information provided in the petition, returns on carinata are
approximately $107 per acre, given average yields of approximately
1,865 pounds per acre and the current contract price of $0.14 per pound
(See Table 2). For comparison purposes, the USDA estimates of corn and
soybean returns, including operating costs but not overhead costs such
as hired labor, were between $206 and $440 per acre in 2013.\18\ Over
time, advancements in seed technology, improvements in planting and
harvesting techniques, and
[[Page 23000]]
changes in input usage could significantly increase future carinata
yields and returns, but it is unlikely the returns to farmers from
carinata will ever compete with the returns from corn, soybeans or
other widely traded commodity crops. In addition, because carinata is
expected to be grown on fallow land, it will not impact other
commodities through land competition. For these reasons, EPA has
determined that, unlike a crop such as soybean, production of carinata-
based biofuels is not expected to have a significant impact on other
agricultural commodity markets and consequently would not result in
significant indirect impacts including indirect land use changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ USDA Economic Research Service, Commodity Costs and
Returns. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx.
Table 2--Carinata Costs and Returns, per acre \19\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Rates 2022 Carinata
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbicides:
Glysophate (Fall)................ 16 oz. ( $0.39/oz)........... $7.00.
Glysophate (Spring).............. 16 oz. ( $0.39/oz)........... $7.00.
Post............................. 12 oz ( $0.67/oz)............ $8.00.
Seed:
Carinata seed.................... $.44/lb...................... $7.20 (5 lbs/acre).
Fertilizer:
Nitrogen Fertilizer.............. $1/lb........................ $60.00 (60 lb/acre).
Phosphate Fertilizer............. $1/lb........................ $30.00 (30 lb/acre).
-------------------------------------------
Sub-Total: ............................. $ 119.20.
Logistics:
Planting Trip.................... ............................. $10.00.
Harvest & Hauling................ ............................. $25.00.
-------------------------------------------
Total Cost................... ............................. $154.20.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yields........................... lbs/ac....................... 1865.
Price............................ $/lb......................... $0.14.
Total Revenue............ ............................. $261.10.
Returns.................. ............................. $106.90.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we expect most carinata used as a renewable fuel feedstock
for the RFS program would be grown in the U.S. and Canada, we expect
that carinata grown in other countries would also not have a
significant impact on other agricultural commodity markets and would
therefore not result in significant indirect GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Nitrogen and Phosphate inputs here are based on application
rates from test plots. Different combinations of the range of
fertilizer inputs we considered may results in higher or lower
estimates. Data provided by Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. petition to
EPA, August 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Crop Inputs
As part of our analysis of the GHG impacts from growing carinata,
we compared crop inputs for carinata to those for soybeans. Inputs
compared include nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus fertilizer, herbicide,
diesel, and gasoline.\20\ We also looked at the nitrous oxide
(N2O) emissions from both the nitrogen fertilizer inputs and
the crop residues associated with carinata.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Diesel and gasoline used for planting and harvesting. These
values assume that no irrigation is needed.
\21\ The IPCC equations for N2O emissions were
updated since our earlier analysis of soybeans. We use the updated
equations for our calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current literature suggests a range of fertilizer inputs are
considered appropriate for growing carinata. The petitioner provided
guidance of 60 lbs per acre of nitrogen fertilizer and 30 lbs per acre
of phosphorus fertilizer based on application rates for test plots
featuring continuous cropping systems, which require more intensive
fertilizing.\22\ We expect that carinata will be grown in fallow
rotation with other crops, which will require lesser fertilizer
amounts, comparable to those for camelina.\23\ Those amounts for
camelina are 40 lbs per acre of nitrogen fertilizer and 15 lbs per acre
of phosphorous fertilizer.\24\ Other research has shown higher carinata
growth rates with higher rates of nitrogen applications, but there is
not consensus on an optimal rate. Therefore, as a conservative estimate
we provide a high-end estimate of 80 lbs per acre of nitrogen
fertilizer. Further, the petitioner did not recommend potassium
fertilizer for carinata production as they assume that the land
carinata would be grown on has high potassium levels that would not
require augmentation. As a conservative estimate, we assume potassium
application rates assumed for camelina as a high input (10 lbs per
acre). Given the range of estimates, Table 3 shows a range of input
assumptions for carinata production, compared to the Forest and
Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM) agricultural input
assumptions for soybeans, which were used in our assessment of soybeans
for the March 2010 rule. From the March 2010 rule, we used soybean
projected yields for 2022 of 1,500 to 3,000 lbs of seed per acre. For
carinata, we used projected 2022 yields of 1,865 lbs of seed per
acre.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Petition from Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. to EPA, August
2013.
\23\ Cover crops, such as carinata and camelina, require less
fertilizer input in a fallow rotation than they might if they were
in a dedicated system as there is residual soil nutrients from the
primary crop.
\24\ 78 FR 14190. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways
Under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR_2013_03_05/pdf/2013_04929.pdf.
\25\ Average yield from a series of research plots explored by
the petitioner. Other studies show a range of yields with various
nitrogen and seed spacing applications. One such study showed a
yield from ranging from 552 to 2434 lbs of seed/acre. We believe an
assumed yield of 1,865 lbs of seed per acre is appropriate.
Pan, X. et al (2012) The effect of cultivar, seeding rate and
applied nitrogen on Brassica carinata seed yield and quality in
contrasting environments. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 92:
961-971, available at: https://pubs.aic.ca/doi/pdf/10.4141/cjps2011_169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carinata has a higher percentage of oil per pound of seed than
soybeans. Soybeans are approximately 18% oil by mass, therefore
crushing one pound of soybeans yields 0.18 pounds of oil. In
comparison, carinata seeds can contain up to 44% oil.\26\ The
difference in oil
[[Page 23001]]
yield was taken into account when calculating the emissions per ton of
feedstock oil included in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, lifecycle GHG
emissions from feedstock production for carinata and soybeans are
relatively similar when factoring in variations in oil yields per acre
and fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide, and petroleum use.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Getinet, A. et al (1996) Agronomic performance and seed
quality of Ethiopian mustard in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of
Plant Science. 76. 387-392, available at: https://pubs.aic.ca/doi/pdf/10.4141/cjps96_069.
\27\ For more details on the greenhouse gas emissions associated
with agricultural inputs, see ``Carinata data and calculations--for
docket'' on Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0093.
Table 3--Inputs for Carinata and Soybean Production for Projected 2022 Yields \28\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carinata Soybeans (varies by region)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions (per ton Emissions (per ton
Inputs (per acre) carinata oil) Inputs (per acre) soybean oil)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N20........................... N/A.............. 584-869 kg CO2eq.. N/A.............. 449.0-661.1 kg CO2eq.
Nitrogen Fertilizer........... 40-80 lbs........ 160-321 kg CO2eq.. 3.5-8.2 lbs...... 23.2-79.1 kg CO2eq.
Phosphorus Fertilizer......... 15-30 lbs........ 21-41 kg CO2eq.... 5.4-21.4 lbs..... 13.5-64.8 kg CO2eq.
Potassium Fertilizer.......... 0-10 lbs......... 0-9 kg CO2eq...... 3.1-24.3 lbs..... 5.3-48.5 kg CO2eq.
Herbicide..................... 2.75-2.75 lbs.... 79-79 kg CO2eq.... 0.0-1.3 lbs...... 2.4-69.6 kg CO2eq.
Pesticide..................... 0-0 lbs.......... 0-0 kg CO2eq...... 0.1-0.8 lbs...... 12.4-50.2 kg CO2eq.
Diesel........................ 3.5-3.5 gal...... 107-107.1 kg CO2eq 3.8-8.9 gal...... 227.9-622.3 kg CO2eq.
Gasoline...................... 0-0 gal.......... 0-0 kg CO2eq...... 1.6-3.0 gal...... 93-151.4 kg CO2eq
Total..................... ................. 950-1426 kg CO2eq. ................. 961-1443 kg CO2eq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Potential Invasiveness
Carinata is not listed on the Federal noxious weed list.\29\ In a
USDA document listing state noxious-weed seed requirements, twenty
states include restrictions for unspecified species of the Brassica
genus, indicating limitations on the use of the plant. Although other
species of Brassica are specified in some states, the carinata species
is not explicitly identified.\30\ Regarding invasiveness, an evaluation
of carinata in Canada by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
concluded that invasiveness potential is deemed to be low and not
difficult to remedy, if remedy is needed.\31\ A weed risk assessment by
USDA found that carinata poses a moderate weed risk potential and
concluded that carinata should undergo further evaluation.\32\ Unlike
some other biofuel feedstocks evaluated under the RFS program for
invasiveness, USDA did not find strong evidence of carinata causing
impacts in anthropogenic (e.g., cities, suburbs, roadways), production
(e.g., agriculture, nurseries, forest plantations, orchards), or
natural systems. However, there is a high level of uncertainty
regarding carinata's spread and impact potential due to incomplete
knowledge about its traits. This uncertainty raises concerns about the
threat of invasiveness and may require remediation activities that
would cause additional GHG emissions. Because carinata does not pose as
great an invasiveness risk as Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum,
EPA believes that monitoring and reporting requirements similar to
those for Arundo donax and Pennisetum purpureum would be appropriate,
but does not expect to apply all of the Risk Management Plan (RMP)
requirements that exist for those feedstocks. We would expect to impose
monitoring and reporting requirements similar to 40 CFR 80.1450
(b)(1)(x)(A)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (v) and 80.1450 (b)(1)(x)(A)(3),
(4), (5), and (7). In addition, a letter documenting the feedstock
grower's compliance with all of the relevant federal, state, regional,
and local requirements related to invasive species would be required.
With these requirements in place, we would assume that there are no GHG
emissions associated with potential invasiveness when carinata is used
as a biofuel feedstock. EPA is taking comment on the invasiveness
concerns of carinata and the appropriateness of the referenced
requirements in mitigating those concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Based on communication with USDA, sulfur can also be a
beneficial fertilizer component for oilseeds such as carinata and
soybeans, dependent on local soil characteristics, at application
rates of up to 10-20 lbs/acre. There are multiple options for sulfur
application as part of a liquid or dry granular mixture that also
contain phosphorous and nitrogen. The emissions for fertilizer rates
provided in Table 3 capture the likely range of impacts associated
with the variety of application options, including ones containing
sulfur.
\29\ USDA, Federal Noxious Weed List, https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf.
\30\ USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service State Noxious-Weed
Seed Requirements Recognized in the Administration of the Federal
Seed Act, 2014, https://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5090172.
\31\ SCS Global Services, Certification Evaluation Report,
Roundtable on Sustainable Biomass, https://rsb.org/pdfs/reports/RSB_PGF-Biofuel_SummaryRPT_InitialEvaluation111513.pdf.
\32\ USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica carinata A. Braun
(Brassicaceae) -Ethiopian mustard, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Crushing and Oil Extraction
EPA evaluated the seed crushing and oil extraction process and
compared the lifecycle GHG emissions from this stage for soybean oil
and carinata oil. EPA assumed the processing of carinata would be
similar to soybeans, canola, and camelina. Because carinata seeds
produce more oil per pound than soybeans, the lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with crushing and oil extraction are lower for carinata than
soybeans per pound of feedstock oil produced.
There is not a significant amount of industry data on energy used
for crushing and oil extraction of carinata. Based on data provided in
the petition submitted, and EPA's standard emissions factors for
electricity and natural gas, we estimate that the GHG emissions from
crushing and oil extraction are 92 kgCO2e/ton carinata oil.
For comparison, in the analysis for the March 2010 final rule, the GHG
emissions from crushing and oil extraction were estimated to be 426
kgCO2e/ton soybean oil. As a conservative estimate, we
propose to assume that the GHG emissions related to crushing and oil
extraction are the same for carinata as for soybeans.
Similar to soybeans, a press cake is also produced when carinata is
crushed and the oil is extracted. Little is known at this time about
the possible beneficial use of carinata cake. Carinata press cake
contains glucosinolates, which may be toxic to animals in large
concentrations.\33\ However, the heat produced from crushing carinata
seeds
[[Page 23002]]
may reduce the toxicity of the press cake, or carinata press cake could
be mixed in low amounts with other seed meal for use as animal
feed.\34\ Alternatively, carinata press cake could be used as a
biofumigant.\35\ In our modeling of soybean oil for the March 2010 RFS
rule, the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models included the use of the soy meal
(sometimes referred to as press cake) co-product as livestock feed. In
our modeling, the use of soy meal as livestock feed displaced the need
for other similar feed products and therefore impacted the relative
prices and production of crop and livestock products. These crop and
livestock impacts were reflected in the land use change, livestock, and
agricultural sector GHG emissions impacts estimated for biofuels
produced from soybean oil. Although EPA modeling results did not
isolate the GHG impacts of the soy meal co-product, we believe that
overall the soy meal co-product lowered the GHG emissions associated
with soybean oil-based biofuels. Similarly, we believe that any use of
the carinata press cake would provide an additional benefit (i.e.,
lower GHG emissions) not reflected in our lifecycle GHG emissions
analysis of carinata oil. Based on our analysis of carinata oil, which
does not consider use of the press cake, we have found that the
agricultural, livestock, and land use change emissions associated with
producing carinata oil are less than or equal to the corresponding
emissions associated with producing soybean oil. Therefore, any
beneficial use of the carinata press cake (e.g., as livestock feed or
boiler fuel) would only serve to lower the GHG emissions associated
with carinata oil relative to the corresponding emissions for soybean
oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica carinata A. Braun
(Brassicaceae)--Ethiopian mustard. 2014.
\34\ Carinata meal (solvent extracted) is approved for feed use
at quantities up to 10% of total diet dry matter in Canada by the
Candian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Letter from W. Gwayumba,
Ph.D. sent to EPA in email from Sandra Franco on July 9, 2014. The
Brassica genus (not carinata explicitly) is approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the Association of American Feed Control
Officials (AAFCO) U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Memorandum of
Understanding Between The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and The
Association of American Feed Control Officials (MOU 225-07-7001)
https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/PartnershipsCollaborations/MemorandaofUnderstandingMOUs/DomesticMOUs/ucm115778.htm. It is
important to note that all animal feed products must be approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be sold
in the United States. Nothing in EPA's analysis should be construed
as an official federal government position regarding the approval or
disapproval of carinata press cake as an animal feed. Only FDA is
authorized to make that determination.
\35\ J. Brown and M.J. Morra, Glucosinolate-Containing Seed Meal
as a Soil Amendment to Control Plant Pests. 2000-2002, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-510-35254, at 15 (2005),
available at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan,
C. Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G. Patalano, W.
Parker (2010), The efficacy of biofumigant meals and plants to
control wireworm populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245-
254.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Feedstock Distribution
EPA's assessment, based on the following reasoning, is that GHG
emissions from feedstock distribution will be the same for carinata as
such emissions for soybeans. Because carinata contains more oil per
pound of seed, as discussed above, the energy needed to move the
carinata before oil extraction would be lower than soybeans per gallon
of oil produced. To the extent that carinata is grown on more disperse
fallow land than soybeans and would need to be transported further, the
energy needed to move the carinata could be higher than soybeans.
Therefore, we believe we may assume for purposes of GHG emissions
assessment that the GHG emissions associated with transporting carinata
and soybeans to crushing facilities will be the same. Carinata and
soybean oils are similar in terms of density and energy content;
therefore, we also assumed that the GHG emissions from transporting the
oil from a crushing facility to a biofuel production facility would be
the same for the two different feedstocks.
C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG Emissions
Compared to soybean oil, carinata oil has comparable GHG emissions
per ton of oil from crop inputs and crushing and oil extraction, and
lower GHG emissions per ton of oil from direct and indirect land use
change. Carinata and soybean oils are also likely to have similar GHG
emissions from feedstock distribution. Therefore, we believe that the
feedstock production and transport portion of the lifecycle GHG
emissions associated with carinata are likely to be similar to or less
than the GHG emissions for the corresponding portion of the lifecycle
analysis for soybean oil. EPA's purpose in evaluating petitions under
40 CFR 80.1416 is not to prepare a precise lifecycle GHG emissions
analysis of every fuel type, but to gather sufficient information on
which to inform its decision of whether proposed biofuels qualify under
the program in terms of lifecycle GHG emissions reduction. Based on our
comparison of carinata oil to soybean oil, EPA proposes to use, in its
future evaluations of petitions seeking to use carinata oil as a
feedstock for biofuel production, an estimate of the GHG emissions
associated with the cultivation and transport of carinata oil that is
the same as that which we have used for soybean oil, on a per ton of
oil basis. Although EPA could conduct a more detailed analysis, we do
not belive it is necessary for purposes of the determinations EPA must
make in responding to petitions. EPA solicits comment on this proposed
approach.
D. Fuel Production and Distribution
Carinata oil has physical properties that are similar to soybean
and camelina oil, and is suitable for the same conversion processes as
these feedstocks. In addition, the fuel yield per pound of oil is
expected to be the same for each of these feedstocks. After reviewing
comments received in response to this Notice, we will combine our
evaluation of agricultural sector GHG emissions associated with the use
of carinata oil feedstock with our evaluation of the GHG emissions
associated with individual producers' production processes and finished
fuels to determine whether the proposed pathways satisfy CAA lifecycle
GHG emissions reduction requirements for RFS-qualifying renewable
fuels. Based on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions
attributable to the production and transport of carinata oil feedstock,
EPA anticipates that fuel produced from carinata oil feedstock through
the same transesterification or hydrotreating process technologies that
EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from
soybean oil and the March 2013 RFS rule for biofuel derived from
camelina oil would qualify for biomass-based diesel (D-code 4) RINs or
advanced (D-code 5) RINs.\36\ However, EPA will evaluate petitions for
fuel produced from carinata oil feedstock on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The transesterification process that EPA evaluated for the
March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil feedstock
is described in section 2.4.7.3 (Biodiesel) of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA-420-R-10-006). The
hydrotreating process that EPA evaluated for the March 2013 rule for
biofuel derived from camelina oil feedstock is described in section
II.A.3.b of the March 2013 rule (78 FR 14190).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary
EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions
associated with the production and transport of carinata oil as a
feedstock for biofuel production. EPA will consider public comments
received when evaluating the lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel
production pathways described in petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416 which use carinata oil as a feedstock.
[[Page 23003]]
Dated: April 17, 2015.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2015-09618 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
