Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78855 

FEDERAL AGENCY HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPLIANCE DOCKET UPDATE #27—DELETIONS—Continued 

Facility name Address City State Zip code Agency Reporting 

mechanism Code 

Reading Army Maintenance Support Activity—29.547 Philadelphia Ave .............. Reading .... PA 19607 U.S. Army .................... 3010 ............. 1 

Beaufort Naval Hospital SC Highway 280 ..................... Beaufort .... SC 29902 U.S. Navy .................... 3010 ............. 6

Charleston Naval 

Weapons Station 

South Annex.

1050 Remount Road ............... North 

Charleston.

SC 29408 U.S. Navy .................... 103c, 3010 ... 6 

Chattanooga Central 

Laboratories.

N Access Rd at TN HWY 153 Chattanooga.TN 37401 Tennessee Valley Authority.3010 ............. 1 

Jackson Power Stores Airways Blvd ........................... Jackson .... TN 38301 Tennessee Valley Authority.3010 ............. 4 

Knoxville Power Stores 4124 Greenway Drive ............. Knoxville ... TN 37902 Tennessee Valley Authority.3010 ............. 4 

Nashville Power Stores 1324 Elm Hill Pike .................. Nashville ... TN 37210 Tennessee Valley Authority.3010 ............. 4 

Phipps Bend Substation US HWY 11 W ........................ Surgoinsville.TN 37873 Tennessee Valley Authority.3010 ............. 4 

Norfolk Postal Service 600 Church St ......................... Norfolk ...... VA 23501 U.S. Postal Service ..... 3010 ............. 1 

Richmond Army National Guard.501 E Franklin St .................... Richmond VA 23219 U.S. Army .................... 3010 ............. 4 

Strategic Systems Program Office.1931 Jefferson Davis Highway, CM #3.Arlington ... VA 22202 ...................................... 3010 ............. 8 

West Virginia Army National Guard.RT 62 N .................................. Point 

Pleasant.

WV 25550 U.S. Army .................... 103a ............. 2 

[FR Doc. 2014–30687 Filed 12–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78856 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

1See 75 FR 14670. 

2 78 FR 14190. 

3 78 FR 41703. 

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: (202) 564–1686; email address: 

monger.jon@epa.gov. 

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 § 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 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 coproducts 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

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78857 

4See 77 FR 74592. 

5E.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. 

6Sudangrass (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. 

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 UrbanaChampaign. 

8Petition, 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 UrbanaChampaign. 

9A 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. 

10Progress 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. 

11Blade Energy Crops (2010). ‘‘Managing HighBiomass Sorghum as a Dedicated Energy Crop.’’ 

Available at: www.bladeenergy.com/Bladepdf/

Blade_SorghumMgmtGuide2010.pdf. 

12According to DOE’s Billion-Ton Update, 

‘‘dedicated biomass sorghums grow well throughout 

the eastern and central United States as far north 

at 40° latitude.’’ Department of Energy (DOE) 

(2011). U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply 

for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry, http://

Continued 

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78858 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 peerreviewed 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

Category 

Switchgrass 16 Biomass sorghum 17

Inputs 

(per dry ton of biomass) 

Emissions 

(per dry ton of 

feedstock) 

Inputs 

(per dry ton of biomass) 

Emissions 

(per dry 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78859 

15The IPCC equations for N2O emissions were 

updated since our earlier analysis of switchgrass. 

We use the updated equations here. 

16Beach, 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. 

18Haque, 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. 

19Mitchell, 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. 

20Turhollow, 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. 

21Blade Energy Crops (2010). ‘‘Managing highbiomass 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. 

22The biochemical and thermochemical 

processes that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 

RFS rule for biofuel derived from switchgrass 

feedstock are described in section 2.4.7.4 

(Cellulosic Biofuel) of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA–420– 

R–10–006). 

23Similarly, 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. 

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. 

25Adjusted cellulosic content is the percent of 

organic material that is cellulose, hemicellulose, 

and lignin. 

26See ‘‘Cellulosic Content of Various 

Feedstocks—2014 Update.’’ Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0401. 

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

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 (Dcode 3) renewable identification 

numbers (RINs) or cellulosic diesel (Dcode 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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

78860 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 

27Adjustments 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. 

29Stefaniak, 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. 

30For more information, see ‘‘14–10–09 

NexSteppe EPA submission.pdf.’’ Docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0537. 

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. 

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. 

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

Sorghum variety 

Dahlberg et al. (2011) * 28 Stefaniak et al. (2012) † 29

Biomass ∧ 

High-yield Sudan/ 

sorghum Forage Biomass ∧ Sudan/ sorghum Forage Sweet 

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. 

† 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. ∧ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 31, 2014 / Notices 78861 

31 79 FR 42128; ‘‘Cellulosic Content of Various 

Feedstocks—2014 Update.’’ Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0401. 

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). 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–ORD–2014–0882; FRL–9920–92– 

ORD] 

Human Studies Review Board; 

Notification of a Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Office of the Science 

Advisor announces a public meeting of 

the Human Studies Review Board to 

advise the Agency on the ethical and 

scientific reviews of EPA research with 

human subjects. 

DATES: This public meeting will be held 

on January 14, 2015, from 

approximately 10:00 a.m. to 

approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. 

Comments may be submitted on or 

before noon (Eastern Time) on 

Wednesday, January 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be 

conducted entirely on the Internet using 

Adobe Connect. Registration is required 

to attend this meeting. Please visit the 

HSRB Web site: http://www.epa.gov/

hsrb to register. 

Comments: Submit your written 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–ORD–2014–0882, by one of 

the following methods: 

Internet: http://www.regulations.gov: 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

Email: ORD.Docket@epa.gov. 

Mail: The EPA Docket Center EPA/

DC, ORD Docket, Mail code: 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Hand Delivery: The EPA/DC Public 

Reading Room is located in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, Room Number 

3334 in the EPA WJC West, at 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. The hours of operation are 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

federal holidays. Please call (202) 566– 

1744 or email the ORD Docket at 

ord.docket@epa.gov for instructions. 

Updates to Public Reading Room access 

are available on the Web site http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Instructions: The Agency’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://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 the EPA without going through 

http://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, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

electronic storage media you submit. If 

the EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, the 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public who wishes to 

receive further information should 

contact Jim Downing at telephone 

number (202) 564–2468; fax: (202) 564– 

2070; email address: downing.jim@

epa.gov; mailing address Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of the Science 

Advisor, Mail code 8105R, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. General information 

concerning the EPA HSRB can be found 

on the EPA Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/hsrb. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Meeting access: Access to this Internet 

meeting is open to all at the information 

provided above. 

Procedures for providing public input: 

Interested members of the public may 

submit relevant written or oral 

comments for the HSRB to consider 

during the advisory process. Additional 

information concerning submission of 

relevant written or oral comments is 

provided in Section I, ‘‘Public Meeting’’ 

under subsection D. ‘‘How May I 

Participate in this Meeting?’’ of this 

notice. 

I. Public Meeting 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This Notice may, however, 

be of particular interest to persons who 

conduct or assess human studies, 

especially studies on substances 

regulated by the EPA, or to persons who 

are, or may be required to conduct 

testing of chemical substances under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act. This notice might 

also be of special interest to participants 

of studies involving human subjects, or 

representatives of study participants or 

experts on community engagement. The 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may have 

interest in human subjects research. If 

you have any questions regarding this 

notice, consult Jim Downing listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES