[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36941]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15666]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 8-A; OMB Control No. 3235-0056; SEC File No. 270-54.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form 8-A (17 CFR 249.208a) is a registration statement use to
register a class of securities under Sections 12(b) and 12(g) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l(b) and 78l(g))
(``Exchange Act''). Section 12(a) (15 U.S.C. 78l(a)) of the Exchange
Act requires securities traded on a national exchange to be registered
under the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). Exchange Act Section
12(b) establishes the registration procedures. Section 12(g) and Rule
12g-1 (17 CFR 240.12g-1) under the Exchange Act requires issuers
engaged in interstate commerce or in a business affecting interstate
commerce, that has total assets of $10,000,000 or more, and a class of
equity security held or record by 500 or more persons to register that
class of security. Form 8-A takes approximately 3 hours to prepare and
is filed by approximately 1,170 respondents for a total of 3,510 annual
burden hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: June 16, 2011.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15666 Filed 6-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79175-79176]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2028-009.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing in Response to
Order issued in ER15-2028-005 (NIMECA) to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1553-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Annual Formula Transmission Rate Update Filing
(TO2021) of Southern California Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 11/20/20.
    Accession Number: 20201120-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-391-001; ER20-391-002; ER20-391-003.
    Applicants: J. Aron & Company LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Updated Market Power Analysis for the
Northwest Region and Notices of Non-Material Change in Status of J.
Aron & Company LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5281.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2654-000.
    Applicants: Clear Power LLC.
    Description: Supplement to August 12, 2020 Clear Power LLC tariff
filing.
    Filed Date: 12/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20201202-5278.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-3008-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended Filing--Revisions to Modify
Schedule 1-A and Formula Rate Template to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-539-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1895R9 Evergy Kansas
Central, Inc. NITSA NOA--Wathena to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-540-000.
    Applicants: Techren Solar III LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
Filing to be effective 12/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-541-000.
    Applicants: Techren Solar IV LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
Filing to be effective 12/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-542-000.
    Applicants: Techren Solar V LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
Filing to be effective 12/4/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-543-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2066R9 Evergy Kansas
Central, Inc. NITSA NOA--Muscotah to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5022.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-544-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2491R8 Evergy Kansas
Central, Inc. NITSA NOA--Scranton to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-545-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ISA,
Service Agreement No. 4756; Queue No. W4-005 to be effective 12/21/
2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-546-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ISA, SA
No. 5744; Queue No. AF1-324 to be effective 12/3/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-547-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc. Formula Rate to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-548-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ISA, SA
No. 5736; Queue No. AF1-326 to be effective 12/3/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-550-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ISA, SA
No. 5738; Queue No. AF1-327 to be effective 12/3/2020.

    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-551-000.
    Applicants: Brunswick Cellulose LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-552-000.
    Applicants: GP Big Island, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-553-000.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-554-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reimbursement Agreement, RS
153, Prairie Power Shelbyville to be effective 2/2/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20
    Accession Number: 20201203-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.
    Docket Numbers: ER21-555-000.

    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Cedar Springs LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-556-000.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations LLC, Green Bay.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-557-000.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Monticello LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-558-000.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations LLC, Green Bay.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-559-000.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations LLC, Green Bay.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-560-000.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations LLC, Green Bay.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 3, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27036 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25801-25802]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2420-054]

PacifiCorp; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing
of Pre-Application Document (Pad), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process,
and Scoping; Request for Comments on the Pad and Scoping Document, and
Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2420-054.
    c. Dated Filed: March 29, 2019.
    d. Submitted By: PacifiCorp.
    e. Name of Project: Cutler Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Bear River near the city of Logan in Box Elder
and Cache counties in Utah. The project does not occupy any federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Eva Davies, Cutler Licensing
Project Manager, PacifiCorp, 1407 West North Temple, Room 210, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84115.
    i. FERC Contact: Khatoon Melick at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402 and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating PacifiCorp as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. PacifiCorp filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document
(PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for download on PacifiCorp's
project relicensing website at: http://www.pacificorp.com/es/hydro/hl/cutler/index.html.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] In lieu of electronic filing, you may send
a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-2420-054.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,''
``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency
Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any
individual or entity interested in submitting study requests,
commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating
status must do so by July 29, 2019.
    q. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this notice, associated
scoping meeting, and our scoping process will satisfy the NEPA scoping
requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the
Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting
will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date and Time: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
    Location: Riverwoods Conference Center, 615 S Riverwoods Parkway,
Logan, UT 84321.
    Phone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date and Time: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 7:00 p.m.
    Location: Riverwoods Conference Center, 615 S Riverwoods Parkway,
Logan, UT 84321.
    Phone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the
environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on
the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the
scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions for accessing
information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a
Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a revised
process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues, identified
through the scoping process.

Environmental Site Review

    The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an
Environmental Site Review of the project on Wednesday, June 26, 2019,
starting at 9:00 a.m. All participants should meet at Cutler Marsh
Marina recreation site--also known as Valley View Marina--located on
the west side of Cutler Reservoir on Highway 30, just west of the
Highway 30 bridge over the reservoir. Driving directions: Starting at
L.W.'s Truck Stop in Logan, Utah (southwest corner of 1000 W and 200
N), drive west on Highway 30 (also 200 N) approximately 5 miles. After
crossing Cutler Reservoir, the Cutler Marsh Marina Recreation Site will
be on the south side of the highway; turn left from the highway into
the gravel parking lot. All participants are responsible for their own
transportation. Recommended gear: Closed toe shoes, good for walking 1-
2 miles in, hat, sunscreen, water bottle, binoculars (optional, for
wildlife viewing). Anyone with questions about the site visit should
contact Ms. Miriam Hugentobler with PacifiCorp at:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Lunch and extra water will be provided by PacifiCorp. For lunch RSVPs
please contact Ms. Miriam Hugentobler at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email her
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n. of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public records of the project.

    Dated: May 28, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11594 Filed 6-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78855-78861]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30712]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0537-; FRL-9921-15-OAR]

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on the Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions for Renewable Fuels Produced From Biomass Sorghum

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this Notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
inviting comment on its preliminary analysis of the greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions attributable to the growth and transport of biomass
sorghum feedstock for use in making biofuels such as ethanol or diesel.
This notice explains EPA's analysis of the growth and transport
components of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from biomass
sorghum, and describes how EPA may apply this analysis in the future to
determine whether biofuels produced from such biomass sorghum meet the
necessary GHG reductions required for qualification under the Renewable
Fuels Standard (RFS) program. Based on this analysis, we anticipate
that biofuels produced from biomass sorghum could qualify for
cellulosic biofuel renewable identification numbers (RINs) if certain
fuel production process technology conditions are met.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0537, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Air and Radiation
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0537.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0537, 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-2014-0537. 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-
2014-0537. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly

available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA 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: Jon Monger, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6406J, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-0628; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This notice is organized as follows:

I. Introduction
II. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With use of
Biomass Sorghum as a Biofuel Feedstock
    A. Feedstock Description, Production, and Distribution
    B. Summary of Agricultural Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    C. Fuel Production and Distribution
    D. Cellulosic Content of Biomass Sorghum
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 Act's requirements for greenhouse gas
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 Sec.  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 greenhouse
gas impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use.
The results of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight
of available evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the
necessary greenhouse gas reductions required under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of the subsets of
renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions
related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock production,
feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel transportation and
distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA definition of
lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an
assessment of significant indirect emissions such as emissions from
land use changes, agricultural sector impacts, and production of co-
products from biofuel production.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA received a petition from the
National Sorghum Producers (NSP), submitted under a claim of
confidential business information (CBI), requesting that EPA evaluate
the lifecycle GHG emissions for biofuels produced using a biomass
sorghum feedstock, 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 a
preliminary evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with the growth
and transport of biomass sorghum when it is used as a biofuel
feedstock, and is seeking public comment on the methodology and results
of this preliminary evaluation.
    After considering comments received, EPA expects to revise its
assessment as appropriate and then use the information to evaluate
petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 which propose to use
biomass sorghum as a feedstock for the production of biofuel, and which
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 use and transport of biomass sorghum
feedstock in determining whether petitioners' proposed biofuel
production pathway satisfies CAA renewable fuel lifecycle GHG reduction
requirements.

II. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With Use of Biomass
Sorghum as a Biofuel Feedstock

    To evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with the use of
biomass sorghum feedstock to produce biofuels, we used a similar
approach to that used for miscanthus in the March 2010 rule, in which
GHG emissions associated with the growth and transport of miscanthus
was determined by comparing feedstock-related GHG emissions to those of
switchgrass. In the March 2010 rule, EPA determined that biofuel made
from switchgrass using designated processes meets the GHG emissions
reduction threshold for cellulosic fuels. For miscanthus, new
agricultural modeling was deemed unnecessary; EPA ultimately determined
that miscanthus would have similar lifecycle GHG emissions to
switchgrass and therefore that biofuels made from designated processes
using miscanthus as a feedstock would have similar lifecycle GHG
emissions as similar biofuels made through the same processes with
switchgrass. EPA also followed a similar approach in assessing GHG
emissions associated with the use of energy cane, giant reed, and
napier grass in rules published on March 5, 2013 (the ``March 2013
rule'') \2\ and July 11, 2013 (the ``July 2013 rule'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 78 FR 14190.
    \3\ 78 FR 41703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in detail in the following sections of this notice,
EPA believes that new agricultural sector modeling is not needed to
analyze biomass sorghum. Instead, we evaluated the agricultural sector
GHG emissions impacts of using biomass sorghum by reference to
switchgrass. Both biomass sorghum and switchgrass are grasses with high
yields and high cellulosic contents. Our preliminary assessment
indicates that on a per dry ton of feedstock basis indirect land use
emissions would be lower, direct emissions associated with use of farm
machinery, fertilizers and pesticides would be lower, and that
emissions associated with feedstock transport would be the same as for
switchgrass. Therefore, we propose in responding to petitions received
pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 to assume that on a per dry ton of feedstock
basis GHG emissions associated with biomass sorghum production and use
are the same as those associated with the production and use of
switchgrass for biofuel production. We believe that this is a
conservative approach, and we invite comment on it.

A. Feedstock Description, Production, and Distribution

    Although all types of cultivated sorghum belong to the species
Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench, breeding for different purposes has led to
significant variation within this species. Sorghum is native to Africa,
but was introduced to the U.S. in the early 17th century. Historically,
sorghum has been bred to be used as a grain, a source of sugar, and as
animal forage. More recently, it has also been bred to increase
biomass. Different types of sorghum have different characteristics and
may therefore qualify as different types of renewable fuels under the
RFS program, making it important to distinguish among the different
types of sorghums.
    Grain Sorghum. In the U.S., grain sorghum is commonly used as
animal feed similar to feed corn, although in other parts of the world
it is used for human consumption. Pathways for ethanol produced from
grain sorghum feedstock were approved in a rule published on December
17, 2012 (the ``December 2012 RFS rule'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 77 FR 74592.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sweet Sorghum. Sweet sorghum has historically been bred to maximize
sugar content, and is crushed to yield a juice that is high in sugars
that are easily fermentable. Processing sweet sorghum is similar to
processing sugarcane, and the resulting juice can be used to produce
sorghum syrup for food consumption or as a biofuel feedstock.
    Forage sorghum. Varieties of forage sorghum are typically used for
animal grazing. These varieties of sorghum have been bred for optimal
nutrition, including high content of digestible nutrients and low
lignin content.
    Sorghum bred for biomass content. Recently, producers have begun
breeding sorghum as a feedstock for biofuel production, beginning with
forage sorghum varieties. The goal of these breeding efforts has been
to maximize the total biomass yield for use as biofuel feedstock. The
resultant sorghum varieties generally have greatly enhanced biomass
yields (plants can grow to be over 20 feet tall), longer growing
seasons, and lower nitrogen demand because digestibility is not a
concern.
    Differentiating the types of sorghum for purposes of the lifecycle
analysis required under the RFS program is challenging because
varieties bred for different purposes all belong to the same species
and are often defined based on end-use, rather than based on specific
physical characteristics.\5\ For purposes of this Notice, EPA considers
biomass sorghum to be Sorghum bicolor that has been selected or bred to
maximize cellulosic content rather than sugar or grain content, and
which therefore has at least 75% cellulosic content. EPA also considers
hybrids that are crosses of Sorghum bicolor and sudangrass \6\ to be
biomass sorghum if they have 75% cellulosic content, but EPA does not
consider hybrids that are crosses of Sorghum bicolor and Johnsongrass
(Sorghum halepense) to be biomass sorghum, even if such hybrids have
75% or higher cellulosic content. This approach is consistent with the
NSP petition, which explicitly excluded Johnsongrass due to concerns
regarding its potential to behave as an invasive species. See Section
II.D. for further discussion of varieties considered biomass sorghum
for purposes of this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ E.g. Stefaniak, T.R., J.A. Dahlberg, B.W. Bean, N. Dighe,
E.J. Wolfrum, and W.L. Rooney (2012). Variation in biomass
composition components among forage, biomass, sorghum-sudangrass and
sweet sorghum types. Crop Science, 52, 1949-1954.
    \6\ Sudangrass (Sorghum x drummondii) is a forage grass which is
commonly crossed with Sorghum bicolor to produce hybrids. FAO
Grassland Species Profile, http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/doc/gbase/data/pf000494.HTM. Accessed 15 September, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Crop Yields
    For the purposes of analyzing the GHG emissions from biomass
sorghum production, EPA examined crop yields and production inputs in
relation to switchgrass to assess the relative GHG impacts. For the
switchgrass lifecycle analysis, EPA assumed national average yields of
approximately 4.5 to 5 dry tons per acre.\7\ Based on field trials in
nine states under a range of growing conditions, the 2012 average yield
of sorghum grown for biomass content is approximately 11 dry tons per
acre,\8\ suggesting that biomass sorghum will have significantly higher
yields than switchgrass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Kumar, A. and S. Sokhansanj (2007). ``Switchgrass (Panicum
vigratum, L,) delivery to a biorefinery using integrated biomass
supply analysis and logistics (IBSAL) model.'' Bioresource
Technology, 98:1033-1044. A more recent study compiled switchgrass
yield data from 45 studies from 1991-2010, and found an average
yield of 4.9 dry tons per acre: Maughan, M.W. (2011) ``Evaluation of
switchgrass, M. x giganteus, and sorghum as biomass crops: Effects
of environment and field management practices.'' Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    \8\ Petition, based on data from 8 sources. A study of the yield
of biomass sorghum in Illinois found yields from 10.1-13.4 dry tons/
acre: Maughan, M.W. (2011). ``Evaluation of switchgrass, M. x
giganteus, and sorghum as biomass crops: Effects of environment and
field management practices.'' Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, EPA's analysis of switchgrass for the RFS rulemaking
assumed a 2% annual increase in yield that would result in an average
national yield of 6.6 dry tons per acre in 2022.\9\ EPA anticipates
similar yield improvements for biomass sorghum as for switchgrass since
both feedstocks are energy crops in the early stages of development,
and improvements in farming practices or new hybrids could increase the
yield over time.\10\ Given the potential for yield improvements, our
analysis assumed an average biomass sorghum yield of 13 dry tons per
acre in the southern United States by 2022, which was calculated using
a 2% annual increase in yield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A recently released switchgrass cultivar, ``Liberty'' has a
yield of 8.1 tons/acre in Nebraska (7.3 dry tons/acre, assuming a
dry matter content of 90%). As hybrids like this become more
commonly used, average national yields will increase; Vogel, K.P.,
R.B. Mitchell, M.D. Casler and G. Sarath (2014). ``Registration of
`Liberty' Switchgrass.'' Journal of Plant Registrations, 8:242-247.
    \10\ Progress is being made in developing new biomass sorghum
hybrids with higher yields than the parents. Increased used of these
hybrids will increase national average yields. Packer, D.J. and W.L.
Rooney (2014). ``High-parent heteropsis for biomass yield in
photoperiod-sensitive sorghum hybrids.'' Field Crops Research,
167:153-158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of its higher yield, biomass sorghum grown in areas with
suitable growing conditions would require approximately 50% less land
area compared to switchgrass to produce the same amount of biomass.
Even without yield growth assumptions, the current higher crop yield
means the land use required for biomass sorghum should be lower than
for switchgrass. Therefore less crop area would be converted and
displaced through use of biomass sorghum as compared to switchgrass.
2. Land Use
    Biomass sorghum is not currently grown at commercial scale in the
United States for the purpose of biofuel production, although
approximately 1.4 million acres of forage sorghum were planted in 2012.
Biomass sorghum is currently grown in test plots as part of research to
develop it as an energy crop, and currently has no other uses. Biomass
sorghum can be planted as early as April and can continue growing until
the fall.\11\ Production is expected to be concentrated in the South
Central U.S. in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, as well as in Missouri and
Arkansas.\12\

These areas are similar to the acres where our agricultural sector
modeling projected switchgrass would be grown in the March 2010 rule.
In addition, modeling results presented in DOE's Billion-Ton Update
suggest that biomass sorghum and switchgrass will be grown in similar
regions.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Blade Energy Crops (2010). ``Managing High-Biomass Sorghum
as a Dedicated Energy Crop.'' Available at: www.bladeenergy.com/Bladepdf/Blade_SorghumMgmtGuide2010.pdf.
    \12\ According to DOE's Billion-Ton Update, ``dedicated biomass
sorghums grow well throughout the eastern and central United States
as far north at 40[deg] latitude.'' Department of Energy (DOE)
(2011). U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and
Bioproducts Industry, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf. DOE's Billion Ton study conducted a
technical analysis of the amount of potential biomass that could be
produced in the U.S. under a range of different conditions. This
study showed that biomass sorghum and switchgrass have the potential
to contribute enough biomass to exceed the volumes of cellulosic
biofuel required by the CAA. The purpose of EPA's 2010 analysis was
to estimate one potential scenario for meeting the biofuel volume
requirements in the CAA, not to estimate the maximum potential
volumes of biofuels that could be produced in the U.S.
    \13\ Department of Energy (DOE) (2011). U.S. Billion-Ton Update:
Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In EPA's analysis for the March 2010 rule, switchgrass plantings
were projected to primarily displace soybeans and wheat, and to a
lesser extent hay, rice, grain sorghum, and cotton in the South Central
U.S. Because biomass sorghum is likely to be grown on similar existing
agricultural land in the same regions, as explained above, and because
biomass sorghum yields are higher than yields of switchgrass (so should
displace fewer total acres) EPA concludes that the indirect land use
GHG impact for biomass sorghum per gallon should be no greater and
likely less than estimated for switchgrass.
    In the switchgrass ethanol scenario done for the March 2010 rule,
total cropland acres were projected to increase by 4.2 million acres,
including an increase of 12.5 million acres of switchgrass and
decreases of 4.3 million acres of soybeans, 1.4 million acres of wheat,
and 1 million acres of hay, as well as smaller decreases in a variety
of other crop acreages. This analysis took into account the economic
conditions such as input costs and commodity prices when evaluating the
GHG and land use change impacts of switchgrass. Given the higher yields
of the biomass sorghum considered here compared to switchgrass, there
should be ample land available for production without having any
adverse impacts beyond those projected for switchgrass production.
    The indirect land use impacts for biomass sorghum are assumed to be
similar to or less than those modeled for switchgrass. The
justification for this assumption is that both crops are expected to be
grown in the South Central U.S. and will likely displace the same types
of cropland, but because of higher biomass sorghum yields, fewer total
acres will be displaced per gallon of fuel produced.\14\ Furthermore,
we believe biomass sorghum will have a similar impact on international
markets as assumed for switchgrass. Like switchgrass, biomass sorghum
is not expected to be traded internationally and its impacts on other
crops are expected to be limited. Accordingly, indirect land use change
GHG emissions associated with biomass sorghum would likely be smaller
than such emissions for switchgrass. Thus, we believe that our proposal
to assume in our lifecycle GHG emissions assessments that indirect land
use change GHG emissions from biomass sorghum would be similar to
switchgrass represents a conservative approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Department of Energy (DOE) (2011). U.S. Billion-Ton Update:
Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Crop Inputs and Feedstock Transport
    EPA also assessed the GHG impacts associated with planting,
harvesting, and transporting biomass sorghum in comparison to
switchgrass. Table 1 below shows the assumed 2022 commercial-scale
production inputs for switchgrass modeled for the March 2010 rule and
average biomass sorghum production inputs based on U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) projections and industry data. Available data
gathered by EPA suggest that biomass sorghum requires on average less
nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and pesticide than switchgrass per
dry ton of biomass, but more herbicide and diesel per dry ton of
biomass. The inputs were given to EPA from the petitioners based on
field trials, verified by the USDA, and documented in peer-reviewed
journals where possible. Since biomass sorghum is an annual crop and
switchgrass is a perennial, some inputs required for growing biomass
sorghum, such as herbicide and diesel, are slightly higher than inputs
for switchgrass (see Table 1 below). Applying the GHG emission factors
used for the March 2010 rule, biomass sorghum production results in
lower GHG emissions per dry ton of biomass produced relative to
switchgrass production, as shown in Table 1, below. More information on
biomass sorghum inputs is available in the docket.

                         Table 1--Direct Inputs for Switchgrass and Biomass Sorghum \15\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Switchgrass \16\                      Biomass sorghum \17\
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                Inputs (per dry   Emissions (per dry   Inputs  (per dry   Emissions (per dry
                                    ton of biomass)    ton of feedstock)    ton of biomass)    ton of feedstock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yield (Projected)...............  6.6 dry tons/acre.  ..................  13 dry ton/acre     ..................
Nitrogen Fertilizer.............  15.2 lbs/dry ton..  25 kg CO2eq.......  4.6 lbs/dry ton...  8 kg CO2eq
N2O.............................  N/A...............  136 kg CO2eq......  N/A...............  105 kg CO2eq
Phosphorus Fertilizer...........  6.1 lbs/dry ton...  3 kg CO2eq........  1.2 lbs/dry ton...  0.6 kg CO2eq
Potassium Fertilizer............  6.1 lbs/dry ton...  2 kg CO2eq........  0.5 lbs/dry ton...  0.2 kg CO2eq
Herbicide.......................  0.002 lbs/dry ton.  0.02 kg CO2eq.....  0.4 lbs/dry ton...  5 kg CO2eq
Insecticide.....................  0.02 lbs/dry ton..  0.3 kg CO2eq......  0.003 lbs/dry ton.  0.05 kg CO2eq
Lime............................  0 lbs/dry ton.....  0 kg CO2eq........  0 lbs/dry ton.....  0 kg CO2eq
Diesel..........................  0.4 gal/dry ton...  6 kg CO2eq........  0.7 gal/dry ton...  9 kg CO2eq
Electricity (irrigation)........  0 kWh/dry ton.....  0 kg CO2eq........  0.0 kWh/dry ton...  0 kg CO2eq
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total GHG emissions.........  ..................  173 kg CO2eq......  ..................  128 kg CO2eq
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The lifecycle GHG emissions associated with distributing biomass
sorghum feedstock are expected to be similar to EPA's estimates for
switchgrass feedstock. One major difference is that switchgrass has a
longer harvest window than biomass sorghum. Biomass sorghum is
typically harvested in the fall, whereas switchgrass can be harvested
from July to March. This suggests that for fuel production purposes,
harvested switchgrass would not need to be stored as long as biomass
sorghum because it would be available directly from the field for a
longer period of time.\18\ However, harvesting switchgrass just once
per year, in the fall, can maximize yield and minimize nutrient
inputs.\19\ Therefore, even though switchgrass could be harvested more
often, in practice it may just be harvested once per year in the fall,
like biomass sorghum. In addition, the biomass sorghum harvest window
can be extended by staggering planting times, using a range of hybrids
with different harvesting times, or using multiple cuttings, which
would reduce storage needs.\20\ When switchgrass and biomass sorghum
need to be stored, both can be stored in bales.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The IPCC equations for N2O emissions were
updated since our earlier analysis of switchgrass. We use the
updated equations here.
    \16\ Beach, R.H. and B.A. McCarl (2010). U.S. Agricultural and
Forestry Impacts of the Energy Independence and Security Act: FASOM
Results and Model Description. Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3178.
    \17\ Input data are from petitioners, peer-reviewed literature,
and USDA. Details on the sources of input data can be found in the
docket. Emissions are calculated based on the input data and
emission factors.
    \18\ Haque, M. and F. M. Epplin (2012). ``Cost to produce
switchgrass and cost to produce ethanol from switchgrass for several
levels of biorefinery investment cost and biomass to ethanol
conversion rates.'' Biomass and Bioenergy, 46:517-530.
    \19\ Mitchell, R. B., and M. R. Schmer (2012). ``Switchgrass
harvest and storage.'' Switchgrass. A. Monti (ed.), London:
Springer-Verlag, 113-127; Garland, C. D., et al. (2008). ``Growing
and harvesting switchgrass for ethanol production in Tennessee.''
University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service.
    \20\ Turhollow, A. F. E. G. Webb, and M. E. Downing (2010).
``Review of sorghum production practices: Applications for
Bioenergy.'' Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oakridge, TN. Available
at: http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub22854.pdf;
Blade Energy Crops (2010). ``Managing high-biomass sorghum as a
dedicated energy crop.'' Available at: http://www.bladeenergy.com/Bladepdf/Blade_SorghumMgmtGuide2010.pdf.
    \21\ Blade Energy Crops (2010). ``Managing high-biomass sorghum
as a dedicated energy crop.'' Available at: http://www.bladeenergy.com/Bladepdf/Blade_SorghumMgmtGuide2010.pdf;
Sanderson, M. A., R. P. Egg, and A. E. Wiselogel (1997). ``Biomass
losses during harvest and storage of switchgrass.'' Biomass and
Bioenergy, 12(2):107-114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Biomass sorghum is expected to achieve higher yields and thus the
feedstock distribution radius around a similar sized biofuel production
plant, or biomass collection hub, could be lower for biomass sorghum
than for switchgrass. Therefore, even though there can be differences
in the harvest period of switchgrass and biomass sorghum, our analysis
makes the simplifying assumption that both crops require similar
transport, loading, unloading, and storage regimes, and have the same
GHG emissions for feedstock distribution, on a per dry ton of feedstock
basis. Harvesting, storage, and distribution were a small fraction of
the total GHG emissions for switchgrass, so we do not believe this
simplification substantially affects our lifecycle analysis.

B. Summary of Agricultural Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Based on our comparison of biomass sorghum to switchgrass, EPA
proposes to use, in its future evaluations of petitions proposing to
use biomass sorghum as feedstock for biofuel production, an estimate of
the GHG emissions associated with the cultivation and transport of
biomass sorghum that is the same as that which we have used for
switchgrass, on a per dry ton of feedstock basis. EPA solicits comment
on this proposed approach.

C. Fuel Production and Distribution

    Biomass sorghum is suitable for the same conversion processes as
approved cellulosic feedstocks such as switchgrass and corn stover.
After reviewing comments received in response to this Notice, we will
combine our evaluation of agricultural sector GHG emissions associated
with the use of biomass sorghum 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 growth and transport of biomass
sorghum feedstock, EPA anticipates that fuel produced from biomass
sorghum feedstock through the same biochemical or thermochemical
process technologies that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for
biofuel derived from switchgrass feedstock would qualify for cellulosic
biofuel (D-code 3) renewable identification numbers (RINs) or
cellulosic diesel (D-code 7) RINs depending on the type of fuel
produced.\22\ However, EPA will evaluate petitions for fuel produced
from biomass sorghum feedstock on a case-by-case basis.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The biochemical and thermochemical processes that EPA
evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from
switchgrass feedstock are described in section <IP_ADDRESS> (Cellulosic
Biofuel) of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the March 2010 RFS
rule (EPA-420-R-10-006).
    \23\ Similarly, EPA anticipates that naphtha produced from
biomass sorghum feedstock through any of the gasification and
upgrading processes that EPA evaluated in the March 2010 RFS rule
(78 FR 14190) for biofuel derived from switchgrass feedstock would
likely qualify for cellulosic biofuel (D-code 3) RINs, but EPA
intends to evaluate petitions for naphtha produced from biomass
sorghum feedstock on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Cellulosic Content of Biomass Sorghum

    For biomass sorghum-derived biofuels to qualify as cellulosic
biofuel under the RFS program, the fuel must achieve a 60% lifecycle
GHG reduction as compared to the 2005 baseline fuels, and must also be
derived from cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. This section of the
Notice discusses our preliminary analysis of the extent to which fuel
made from biomass sorghum may qualify as derived from cellulose,
hemicellulose and lignin. For simplicity, these three chemicals are
hereafter referred to as ``cellulose,'' and their presence in feedstock
as the feedstock's ``cellulosic content.''
    In the rule published on July 18, 2014 (the ``July 2014
rule''),\24\ EPA determined that fuel generated from feedstocks with an
average adjusted cellulosic content \25\ of 75% or more is eligible to
generate cellulosic biofuel RINs for the entire fuel volume. EPA
examined the biochemical composition of different feedstocks commonly
understood to be ``cellulosic,'' including corn stover and other crop
residues, switchgrass, miscanthus, energy cane, giant reed, napier
grass, and various woods and tree branches. Based on this work, EPA
found that roughly 75-90% of the organic biomass of these feedstocks
was cellulosic, and the balance was comprised of other constituents,
such as starches and sugars.\26\ EPA considered in the July 2014 rule
the extent to which fuel made from these and other feedstocks with some
amount of cellulosic content

should be considered ``cellulosic biofuel,'' and determined in the rule
that the entire volume of fuel derived from feedstocks with at least
75% adjusted cellulosic content should be considered cellulosic
biofuel. Fuel made from feedstocks having less cellulosic content could
qualify for the generation of cellulosic biofuel RINs for a portion of
the finished fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II,
and Technical Amendments to the RFS Standards and E15 Misfueling
Mitigation Requirements.'' 79 FR 42128.
    \25\ Adjusted cellulosic content is the percent of organic
material that is cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin.
    \26\ See ``Cellulosic Content of Various Feedstocks--2014
Update.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 2014 rule, EPA described in more detail why we believed
that setting the threshold at 75% percent appropriately implements the
statutory requirements while not imposing excessive administrative
burden on industry. In that rulemaking, EPA also explained that we
would apply the 75% threshold to feedstocks that we evaluated in the
future, and finalized a definition of energy cane, which can have a
wide range of cellulosic contents. Consistent with that rulemaking, we
have evaluated the cellulosic content of biomass sorghum. The results
of chemical analyses of biomass sorghum and other types of sorghum are
shown in Table 2 below and derive from two scientific studies and
industry data. One study found that sorghum selected or bred for
enhanced biomass content was composed of 61-72% cellulosic materials,
with an average of 67% cellulosic material, whereas the other found an
average composition of 59% cellulosic material. When these values are
adjusted to remove the ash content (which will not yield biofuel),\27\
the adjusted cellulosic contents are 75% and 63%, respectively, from
the two studies (Table 2). Compared to traditional forage sorghums, one
study found sorghums selected or bred for biomass content had greater
cellulosic content, whereas the other found they had lower cellulosic
content. These differences likely reflect both the natural
heterogeneity within crops and the fact that breeders are still
experimenting with sorghum to find which varieties are best for biofuel
usage, and thus have not yet settled on any particular sets of
``ideal'' properties or compositions for this crop. Breeding of sorghum
to enhance biomass content is in the early stages, and it is likely
that in the future, these feedstocks may be bred to contain greater
proportions of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Data submitted by
NexSteppe and available in the docket indicate that newer hybrids of
sorghum do have higher percentages of cellulose, hemicellulose, and
lignin, in the range of 75-81%, with a range of 77-89% for the adjusted
cellulosic content. Some of the sorghum samples also contained
significant proportions of sugar (0.3-19%) and starch (0-12%), as shown
in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Adjustments are also made to account for percent recoveries
less than 100%. If all chemical components of a feedstock are
analyzed, the total recovery should equal 100%. However, recoveries
may be lower than 100% because of losses during sample processing.
For recoveries less than 100%, the percent concentration of each
component was adjusted so that the total percent recovery equaled
100%. For more information, see ``Cellulosic Content of Various
Feedstocks--2014 Update.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401.
    \28\ Dahlberg, J., E. Wolfrum, B. Bean, and W.L. Rooney (2011).
Compositional and agronomic evaluation of sorghum biomass as a
potential feedstock for renewable fuels. Journal of Biobased
Materials and Bioenergy. 5, 1-7. Values include additional data
provided by J. Dahlberg on October 22, 2013.
    \29\ Stefaniak, T.R., J.A. Dahlberg, B.W. Bean, N. Dighe, E.J.
Wolfrum, and W.L. Rooney (2012). Variation in biomass composition
components among forage, biomass, sorghum-sudangrass and sweet
sorghum types. Crop Science, 52, 1949-1954.
    \30\ For more information, see ``14-10-09 NexSteppe EPA
submission.pdf.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0537.

            Table 2--Chemical Composition of Different Types of Sorghum Samples, as Determined by Two Research Studies and From Industry Data
[The adjusted cellulosic composition was calculated by adjusting the reported content of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin for the ash content and for
                                                                    the total yields]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source                                                        Chemical composition (%)                                   NexSteppe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     \30\
                                                      Dahlberg et al. (2011) * \28\             Stefaniak et al. (2012) [dagger] \29\       ------------
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Sorghum variety                                  Sudan/                   Biomass       Sudan/                                Biomass
                                                   High-yield    sorghum       Forage      [caret]      sorghum       Forage       Sweet       [caret]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of samples...............................            5            4           15           51            6           41           54            7
Sucrose (sugar):
    Average.....................................          2.9          2.7          1.0          9.0          2.4          1.1          9.8          4.5
    Range.......................................      1.6-4.6      0.4-3.5      0.2-1.7       0.3-19      0.4-4.6      0.2-3.0     0.2-23.9      1.2-8.5
Starch:
    Average.....................................          0.8          5.6         18.1          5.6          1.1          1.8          7.3          3.4
    Range.......................................          0-4         0-15       0-25.2       0-12.0        0-4.0        0-8.9       0-16.6      0.3-8.1
Cellulosic Components:
    Average.....................................         66.7         62.0         54.9         59.2         63.9         66.4         58.3         77.5
    Range.......................................    61.3-72.3    53.8-67.5    46.8-73.6  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........    75.3-80.5
Adjusted Cellulosic Composition:
    Average.....................................         75.4         70.0         60.5         63.2         72.5         70.1         61.8         83.7
    Range.......................................    68.9-82.8    61.2-75.8    50.5-84.4  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........    77.4-88.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This paper analyzed 22 samples of forage sorghum, including some high-yield varieties that could be used for biomass purposes. The four sudan/sorghum
  varieties include two samples that were also counted in the high-yield category. The remaining varieties fall into the forage sorghum category.
[dagger] This study separated 152 samples of sorghum into groups based on end use, with samples being harvested at different growth stages and
  containing various tissue types depending on how the material would ultimately be used. See the original source for more information about the
  different classes of sorghum.
[caret] These sources refer to certain hybrids as ``biomass'' sorghum. However, this does not necessarily mean that these varieties meet EPA's 75%
  adjusted cellulosic content threshold.

    In the July 2014 rule, EPA considered the cellulosic content of
energy cane. Like biomass sorghum, cane can be bred for a wide range of
cellulosic and sugar contents. In that rule, EPA defined ``energy
cane'' as cultivars containing at least 75% adjusted cellulosic
content. EPA also indicated that in the future, feedstocks that could
be bred for a wide range of uses and fiber content would have
registration requirements similar to energy cane, in order to
demonstrate that the adjusted cellulosic content of varieties used is
at least 75%. Therefore, for the purposes of the cellulosic content
issue, EPA intends to treat biomass sorghum similar to energy cane. For
purposes of this Notice, we consider biomass sorghum to include
varieties containing at least 75% adjusted cellulosic content. If, as a
result of a complete lifecycle assessment in response to individual
producer petitions EPA determines that a given fuel product made from
biomass sorghum satisfies the 60% lifecycle GHG reduction requirement
for cellulosic biofuel, 100% of the fuel in question would qualify for
cellulosic biofuel RINs, provided the producer can

demonstrate that the varieties they use as a feedstock contain at least
75% adjusted cellulosic content and satisfy all other applicable
definitional, registration, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
We would consider any cultivars with an adjusted cellulosic content
less than 75% to be forage sorghum, which we are not addressing in this
Notice. See the discussion regarding energy cane in the July 2014 rule
and accompanying memo to the docket \31\ for a description of the
methodologies and data EPA considers suitable for demonstrating that
the average adjusted cellulosic content is at least 75%. We expect that
any approved petition for cellulosic biofuel made from biomass sorghum
would contain registration requirements comparable to those set forth
at 40 CFR 80.1450(b)(1)(xiv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 79 FR 42128; ``Cellulosic Content of Various Feedstocks--
2014 Update.'' Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary

    EPA invites public comment on its preliminary analysis of GHG
emissions associated with the cultivation and transport of biomass
sorghum as a feedstock for biofuel production. EPA expects to revise
its analysis as appropriate in light of public comments received, and
to thereafter use the analysis as part of its evaluation of the
lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel production pathways described in
petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 which use biomass sorghum
as a feedstock.

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2014-30712 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P