22996 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices 

II. What does this correction do? 

FR Doc. 2015–07200 published in the 

Federal Register of March 30, 2015 (80 

FR 16675) (FRL–9922–79) is corrected 

as follows: 

1. On page 16676, in Table 1, under 

the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. 

What action is the Agency taking?, 

Table 1—Registration Review Dockets 

Opening, column named ‘‘Registration 

review case name and No.’’ is corrected 

to include in a new line to read: 

Forchlorfenuron (Case 7057). 

2. On page 16676, in Table 1, under 

the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. 

What action is the Agency taking?, 

Table 1—Registration Review Dockets 

Opening, column named ‘‘Pesticide 

docket ID No.’’, is corrected to include 

in the new line for forchlorfenuron to 

read: EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0641. 

3. On page 16676, in Table 1, under 

the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. 

What action is the Agency taking?, 

Table 1—Registration Review Dockets 

Opening, column named ‘‘Chemical 

review manager, telephone number, 

email address’’ is corrected to include in 

a new line for forchlorfenuron to read: 

Wilhelmena Livingston, (703) 308–8025, 

livingston.wilhelmena@epa.gov. 

4. On page 16676, in the first column, 

Table 1, under the heading III. 

Registration Reviews; A. What action is 

the Agency taking?, paragraph 2, line 5, 

to delete the sentence ‘‘For 

Forchlorfenuron (Case 7057), EPA is 

seeking comment on the Combined 

Work Plan, Summary Document, and 

Proposed Interim Registration Review 

Decision, which includes the human 

health and ecological risk assessments.’’ 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. 

Dated: April 10, 2015. 

Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., 

Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09525 Filed 4–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0093–; FRL–9926–80– 

OAR] 

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on 

an Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Attributable to Production 

and Transport of Brassica Carinata Oil 

for Use in Biofuel Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In this Notice, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is inviting comment on its analysis of 

the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

attributable to the production and 

transport of Brassica carinata (carinata) 

oil feedstock for use in making biofuels 

such as biodiesel, renewable diesel, and 

jet fuel. This notice explains EPA’s 

analysis of the production and transport 

components of the lifecycle GHG 

emissions of biofuel made from carinata 

oil, and describes how EPA may apply 

this analysis in the future to determine 

whether biofuels produced from 

carinata oil meet the necessary GHG 

reductions required for qualification as 

renewable fuel under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard program. Based on this 

analysis, we anticipate that biofuels 

produced from carinata oil could qualify 

as advanced biofuel if typical fuel 

production process technology 

conditions are used. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 26, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0093, by one of the 

following methods: 

• 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–2015–0093. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0093, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA/DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Air 

and Radiation Docket, ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0093. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–XXXX– 

XXXX. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at 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 WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Shell, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; 

telephone number: 202–564–8479; fax 

number: 202–564–1177; email address: 

shell.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This notice is organized as follows: 

I. Introduction 

II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated 

with use of Carinata Oil as a Biofuel 

Feedstock 

A. Feedstock Production 

1. Background 

2. Volume Potential 

3. Indirect Impacts 

4. Crop Inputs 

5. Potential Invasiveness 

6. Crushing and Oil Extraction 

B. Feedstock Distribution 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices 22997 

1See 75 FR 14670. 

2For purposes of this notice, the term ‘‘carinata’’ 

refers to the species Brassica Carinata. 

3 78 FR 14190. 

4Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinata- a new 

molecular farming platform for delivering bioindustrial oil feestocks: case studies of genetic 

modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid 

and oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts & 

Biorefining 4.5: 538–561. 

5Fahd, S. et. al (2010) Energy, Environmental and 

Economic Assessment of Non-Food Use of Brassica 

Carinata http://www.societalmetabolism.org/

aes2010/Proceeds/DIGITAL%20PROCEEDINGS_

files/POSTERS/P_138_Sandra_Fahd.pdf. 

6Plant Resources of Tropical Africa (PROTA). 

PROTA 14: Vegatable Oils Record Display, Brassica 

Carinata http://database.prota.org/PROTAhtml/

Brassica%20carinata_En.htm. 

C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG 

Emissions 

D. Fuel Production and Distribution 

III. Summary 

I. Introduction 

As part of changes to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard (RFS) program 

regulations published on March 26, 

2010 1 (the ‘‘March 2010 rule’’), EPA 

specified the types of renewable fuels 

eligible to participate in the RFS 

program through approved fuel 

pathways. Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 of 

the RFS regulations lists three critical 

components of an approved fuel 

pathway: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; 

and (3) production process. Fuel 

produced pursuant to each specific 

combination of the three components, or 

fuel pathway, is designated in the Table 

as eligible for purposes of the Clean Air 

Act’s (CAA) requirements for 

greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions to 

qualify as renewable fuel or one of three 

subsets of renewable fuel (biomassbased diesel, cellulosic biofuel, or 

advanced biofuel). EPA may also 

independently approve additional fuel 

pathways not currently listed in Table 1 

to 40 CFR 80.1426 for participation in 

the RFS program, or a third-party may 

petition for EPA to evaluate a new fuel 

pathway in accordance with 40 CFR 

80.1416. 

EPA’s lifecycle analyses are used to 

assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel 

throughout each stage of its production 

and use. The results of these analyses, 

considering uncertainty and the weight 

of available evidence, are used to 

determine whether a fuel meets the 

necessary GHG reductions required 

under the CAA for it to be considered 

renewable fuel or one of three subsets of 

renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis 

includes an assessment of emissions 

related to the full fuel lifecycle, 

including feedstock production, 

feedstock transportation, fuel 

production, fuel transportation and 

distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per 

the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG 

emissions, EPA’s lifecycle analyses also 

include an assessment of significant 

indirect emissions such as indirect 

emissions from land use changes, 

agricultural sector impacts, and 

production of co-products from biofuel 

production. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA 

received a petition from Agrisoma 

Biosciences Inc. requesting that EPA 

evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for 

biofuels produced using Brassica 

carinata (carinata) oil,2 and that EPA 

provide a determination of the 

renewable fuel categories, if any, for 

which such biofuels may be eligible. As 

an initial step in this process, EPA has 

conducted an evaluation of the GHG 

emissions associated with the 

production and transport of carinata 

when it is used as a biofuel feedstock, 

and is seeking public comment on the 

methodology and results of this 

evaluation. 

EPA expects to consider comments 

received and then use the information to 

evaluate petitions received pursuant to 

40 CFR 80.1416 that propose to use 

carinata oil as a feedstock for the 

production of biofuel, and that seek an 

EPA determination regarding whether 

such biofuels qualify as renewable fuel 

under the RFS program. In evaluating 

such petitions, EPA will consider the 

GHG emissions associated with 

petitioners’ biofuel production 

processes, as well as emissions 

associated with the transport and use of 

the finished biofuel, in addition to the 

GHG emissions associated with the 

production and transport of carinata 

feedstock in determining whether 

petitioners’ proposed biofuel production 

pathway satisfies CAA renewable fuel 

lifecycle GHG reduction requirements. 

II. Analysis of GHG Emissions 

Associated With Use of Carinata Oil as 

a Biofuel Feedstock 

EPA has evaluated the lifecycle GHG 

impacts of using carinata oil as a biofuel 

feedstock, based on information 

provided in the petition and other data 

gathered by EPA. For these analyses, we 

used a similar approach to that used for 

camelina oil in a rule published on 

March 5, 2013 (the ‘‘March 2013 rule’’).3

In that rulemaking, EPA determined that 

several renewable fuel pathways using 

camelina oil feedstock meet the required 

50% lifecycle GHG reduction threshold 

under the RFS for biomass-based diesel 

and advanced biofuel because the GHG 

emissions performance of camelinabased fuels is at least as good as that 

modeled for fuels made from soybean 

oil. 

EPA believes that new agricultural 

sector modeling is not needed to 

evaluate the lifecycle GHG impacts of 

using carinata oil as a biofuel feedstock 

for purposes of making GHG reduction 

threshold determinations for the RFS 

program. This is in part because of the 

similarities of carinata oil to soybean oil 

and camelina oil, and because carinata 

is not expected to have significant land 

use change impacts. Instead of 

performing new agricultural sector 

modeling, EPA relied upon the soybean 

oil analysis conducted for the March 

2010 rule to assess the relative GHG 

impacts of growing and transporting 

carinata oil for use as a biofuel 

feedstock. We have looked at every 

component of the agricultural sector 

GHG emissions from carinata oil 

production, including land use change, 

crop inputs, crushing and oil extraction, 

and feedstock distribution. For each 

component, we believe that the GHG 

emissions are less than or comparable to 

the emissions from the equivalent 

component of soybean oil production. 

Based on this analysis (described 

below), we propose to evaluate the 

agricultural sector GHG emissions 

impacts of using carinata oil in 

responding to petitions received 

pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by 

assuming that GHG emissions are 

similar to those associated with the use 

of soybean oil for biofuel production. 

We invite comment on this proposed 

approach. 

A. Feedstock Production 

1. Background 

Brassica carinata (carinata), 

commonly known as ‘‘Ethiopian 

mustard’’ or ‘‘Ethiopian rapeseed’’, is an 

oilseed crop within the flowering plant 

family Brassicaceae and is native to the 

Ethiopian highlands. 

Carinata oil has high concentrations 

of erucic acid which make it less 

suitable for food uses but potentially 

attractive for biolubricants and 

polymers, and other industrial 

applications.4 5 It is not used for food in 

the United States where more desireable 

substitutes are readily available, though 

there is a limited amount of use for 

dietary purposes in Africa and western 

and southern Asia.6 The vast majority of 

carinata currently grown in the United 

States is in limited field trials to 

evaluate its qualities as a feedstock to 

produce biofuels. The U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) does not track 

the production or end-uses of carinata 

but the petitioner believes 95% of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22998 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices 

7Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. petition to the EPA, 

August 2013. 

8Earlier strains of Brassica carinata have 

contained various, lesser oil contents. However, 

selective breeding and developments through 

transgenics have produced strains with high oil 

contents. Taylor, DC et al (2010) Brassica carinataa new molecular farming platform for delivering 

bio-industrial oil feestocks: case studies of genetic 

modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid 

and oil content in seeds Biofuels, Bioproducts & 

Biorefining 4.5: 538–561. http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.231/epdf. 9Warwick (2011) at 49 (citations omitted); see 

also I.A. Zasada and H. Ferris (2004), Nematode 

suppression with brassicaceous amendments: 

application based upon glucosinolate profiles, Soil 

Biology & Biochemistry 36:1017–1024. 10 J. Brown and M.J. Morra, GlucosinolateContaining Seed Meal as a Soil Amendment to 

Control Plant Pests. 2000–2002, National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR–510– 

35254, at 15 (2005), available at http://

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan, C. 

Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G. 

Patalano, W. Parker (2010), The Efficacy of 

Biofumigant Meals and Plants to Control Wireworm 

Populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245– 

254. 

11See Shonnard et al., 2010; Lafferty et al., 2009 

Long-Term Tillage and Cropping Sequence Effects 

on Dryland Residue and Soil Carbon Fractions. 

current carinata research has been for 

biofuels with some limited research on 

enhanced oil recovery applications.7

Compared to other oilseeds, carinata 

seed contains a high oil content (44%) 

which means a greater portion of the 

feedstock can be converted to biofuel.8

Carinata oil contains longer carbon 

chains than other oilseeds, making it 

more suited to be broken down for 

industrial uses, and long chain fatty 

acids make it ideal for biodiesel 

production. When grown, carinata 

provides multiple benefits as a 

biofumigant, serving to suppress disease 

and insects,9 while also controlling 

weeds and other soil-borne pests.10

2. Volume Potential 

Carinata will most likely be grown in 

the U.S. and Canada in semi-arid, 

marginal land, as an off-season winter 

cover crop in the southeastern U.S., or 

on dryland wheat acres during the 

period that they would otherwise be left 

fallow. In areas with lower 

precipitation, dryland wheat farmers 

currently leave acres fallow once every 

three to four years to allow additional 

moisture and nutrients to accumulate 

and control pests. Current research 

indicates that carinata could be 

introduced into this rotation in certain 

areas in lieu of fallowing without 

adversely impacting moisture or 

nutrient accumulation. Land featuring a 

carinata rotation can be returned to 

wheat cultivation the following year 

with moisture and soil nutrients 

quantitatively similar to a fallow year.11

Table V.D.–2 illustrates example wheat 

and carinata rotations, which are 

expected to be very similar to current 

wheat/camelina rotation systems. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN24AP15.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices 22999 

12U.S. Wheat Supply and Use. World 

Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate 

(WASDE), December 2014. USDA http:// 

usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/wasde/ 

wasde-12-10-2014.pdf. 

13Agrisoma Biosciences Inc., petition to EPA, 

August 2013. 

14 Johnson, S. and McCormick, M., Camelina: an 

Annual Cover Crop Under 40 CFR part 80 Subpart 

M, Memorandum, dated November 5, 2010. 

15 In the United States, field trials have occurred 

or are occurring with the University of Florida, 

Colorado State University, Montana State 

University, South Dakota University, and North 

Dakota State University. 

16Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. Petition to EPA, 

August 2013. 

17For biodiesel produced from soybean oil, 7.6 

pounds of oil are also needed for one gallon of 

biodiesel. 

18USDA Economic Research Service, Commodity 

Costs and Returns. Available at: http:// 

www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costsand-returns.aspx. 

As we expect that carinata will 

primarily be grown in rotation with 

wheat, we based land availability and 

projected volumes on estimated wheat 

acres. USDA does not systematically 

collect carinata production information; 

therefore data on historical acreage is 

limited. The latest USDA estimates 

(December 2014) report approximately 

57 million acres of wheat in the U.S.12

USDA and wheat state cooperative 

extension reports through 2008 

indicated that 83% of domestic wheat 

production was under non-irrigated, 

dryland conditions, and that at least 

45% of those acres were estimated to 

follow a wheat/fallow rotation. Thus, 

approximately 21 million acres are 

potentially suitable for carinata 

production. However, according to an 

industry projection 13 based on an 

estimate for camelina, only about nine 

million of these wheat/fallow acres have 

the appropriate climate, soil profile, and 

market access for carinata production.14

Further, the petitioner projects another 

three million acres of fallow land in 

wheat rotation are potentially available 

for carinata production in Canada. 

Based on our calculations of the 

potential biodiesel production from 

carinata, as described below, we do not 

anticipate demand for carinata oil to be 

greater than can be satisfied by available 

fallow acres. 

According to an industry estimate, 

commercial production of carinata in 

2012 occurred at over 40 locations 

across Saskatchewan and Alberta, 

Canada.15 The first commercial 

cultivation of carinata in the United 

States occurred in Montana in 2013, and 

estimates from the original petition 

indicated that 100,000 acres would be 

planted in 2014.16 Based on a three year 

rotation cycle in which only one third 

of the 12 million combined U.S. and 

Canada wheat acres is typically fallow 

in any given year, EPA estimates that at 

current average yields (1,865 pounds of 

seed per acre, or 820 pounds of oil per 

acre), approximately 400 million gallons 

(MG) of carinata-based biodiesel could 

be produced with carinata grown in 

rotation with existing crop acres 

(assuming 7.6 pounds of oil produces 1 

gallon of biodiesel).17 However, as there 

is no commercial market for carinata at 

present, when planted, actual acres are 

expected to be much smaller and 

dedicated to test plots in the near term. 

Carinata may expand to other regions 

and growing methods in the longer 

term. 

Research is ongoing to improve 

carinata oil yields, which can be 

expected to increase as experience with 

growing carinata improves cultivation 

practices and the application of existing 

technologies are more widely adopted. 

For example, yields of over 1,600 

pounds of oil per acre have been 

achieved on test plots. For the purposes 

of this lifecycle GHG analysis, EPA is 

assuming the intermediate current yield 

of 820 pounds of oil per acre and a 

biofuel production volume of 400 MG of 

carinata as representing a reasonable 

projection of production in 2022. 

3. Indirect Impacts 

Unlike commodity crops that are 

tracked by USDA, carinata does not 

have a well-established, internationally 

traded market that would be 

significantly affected by an increase in 

carinata-based biofuels. Based on the 

information provided in the petition, 

returns on carinata are approximately 

$107 per acre, given average yields of 

approximately 1,865 pounds per acre 

and the current contract price of $0.14 

per pound (See Table 2). For 

comparison purposes, the USDA 

estimates of corn and soybean returns, 

including operating costs but not 

overhead costs such as hired labor, were 

between $206 and $440 per acre in 

2013.18 Over time, advancements in 

seed technology, improvements in 

planting and harvesting techniques, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN24AP15.004</GPH>
23000 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices 

19Nitrogen and Phosphate inputs here are based 

on application rates from test plots. Different 

combinations of the range of fertilizer inputs we 

considered may results in higher or lower estimates. 

Data provided by Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. 

petition to EPA, August 2013. 20 Diesel and gasoline used for planting and 

harvesting. These values assume that no irrigation 

is needed. 21The IPCC equations for N2O emissions were 

updated since our earlier analysis of soybeans. We 

use the updated equations for our calculations. 

22Petition from Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. to 

EPA, August 2013. 23Cover crops, such as carinata and camelina, 

require less fertilizer input in a fallow rotation than 

they might if they were in a dedicated system as 

there is residual soil nutrients from the primary 

crop. 24 78 FR 14190. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Identification of Additional Qualifying 

Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard Program, available at: http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR_2013_03_05/pdf/

2013_04929.pdf. 

25Average yield from a series of research plots 

explored by the petitioner. Other studies show a 

range of yields with various nitrogen and seed 

spacing applications. One such study showed a 

yield from ranging from 552 to 2434 lbs of seed/

acre. We believe an assumed yield of 1,865 lbs of 

seed per acre is appropriate. 

Pan, X. et al (2012) The effect of cultivar, seeding 

rate and applied nitrogen on Brassica carinata seed 

yield and quality in contrasting environments. 

Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 92: 961–971, 

available at: http://pubs.aic.ca/doi/pdf/10.4141/

cjps2011_169. 

26 Getinet, A. et al (1996) Agronomic performance 

and seed quality of Ethiopian mustard in 

changes in input usage could 

significantly increase future carinata 

yields and returns, but it is unlikely the 

returns to farmers from carinata will 

ever compete with the returns from 

corn, soybeans or other widely traded 

commodity crops. In addition, because 

carinata is expected to be grown on 

fallow land, it will not impact other 

commodities through land competition. 

For these reasons, EPA has determined 

that, unlike a crop such as soybean, 

production of carinata-based biofuels is 

not expected to have a significant 

impact on other agricultural commodity 

markets and consequently would not 

result in significant indirect impacts 

including indirect land use changes. 

TABLE 2—CARINATA COSTS AND RETURNS, PER ACRE 19

Inputs Rates 2022 Carinata 

Herbicides: 

Glysophate (Fall) ....................................................... 16 oz. ( $0.39/oz) ............................................................ $7.00. 

Glysophate (Spring) ................................................... 16 oz. ( $0.39/oz) ............................................................ $7.00. 

Post ............................................................................ 12 oz ( $0.67/oz) ............................................................. $8.00. 

Seed: 

Carinata seed ............................................................ $.44/lb .............................................................................. $7.20 (5 lbs/acre). 

Fertilizer: 

Nitrogen Fertilizer ...................................................... $1/lb ................................................................................. $60.00 (60 lb/acre). 

Phosphate Fertilizer ................................................... $1/lb ................................................................................. $30.00 (30 lb/acre). 

Sub-Total: .......................................................................................... $ 119.20. 

Logistics: 

Planting Trip .............................................................. .......................................................................................... $10.00. 

Harvest & Hauling ..................................................... .......................................................................................... $25.00. 

Total Cost ........................................................... .......................................................................................... $154.20. 

Yields ......................................................................... lbs/ac ............................................................................... 1865. 

Price ........................................................................... $/lb ................................................................................... $0.14. 

Total Revenue ............................................. .......................................................................................... $261.10. 

Returns ........................................................ .......................................................................................... $106.90. 

Althoughwe expect most carinata 

used as a renewable fuel feedstock for 

the RFS program would be grown in the 

U.S. and Canada, we expect that 

carinata grown in other countries would 

also not have a significant impact on 

other agricultural commodity markets 

and would therefore not result in 

significant indirect GHG emissions. 

4. Crop Inputs 

As part of our analysis of the GHG 

impacts from growing carinata, we 

compared crop inputs for carinata to 

those for soybeans. Inputs compared 

include nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus 

fertilizer, herbicide, diesel, and 

gasoline.20 We also looked at the nitrous 

oxide (N2O) emissions from both the 

nitrogen fertilizer inputs and the crop 

residues associated with carinata.21

Current literature suggests a range of 

fertilizer inputs are considered 

appropriate for growing carinata. The 

petitioner provided guidance of 60 lbs 

per acre of nitrogen fertilizer and 30 lbs 

per acre of phosphorus fertilizer based 

on application rates for test plots 

featuring continuous cropping systems, 

which require more intensive 

fertilizing.22 We expect that carinata 

will be grown in fallow rotation with 

other crops, which will require lesser 

fertilizer amounts, comparable to those 

for camelina.23 Those amounts for 

camelina are 40 lbs per acre of nitrogen 

fertilizer and 15 lbs per acre of 

phosphorous fertilizer.24 Other research 

has shown higher carinata growth rates 

with higher rates of nitrogen 

applications, but there is not consensus 

on an optimal rate. Therefore, as a 

conservative estimate we provide a 

high-end estimate of 80 lbs per acre of 

nitrogen fertilizer. Further, the 

petitioner did not recommend 

potassium fertilizer for carinata 

production as they assume that the land 

carinata would be grown on has high 

potassium levels that would not require 

augmentation. As a conservative 

estimate, we assume potassium 

application rates assumed for camelina 

as a high input (10 lbs per acre). Given 

the range of estimates, Table 3 shows a 

range of input assumptions for carinata 

production, compared to the Forest and 

Agricultural Sector Optimization Model 

(FASOM) agricultural input 

assumptions for soybeans, which were 

used in our assessment of soybeans for 

the March 2010 rule. From the March 

2010 rule, we used soybean projected 

yields for 2022 of 1,500 to 3,000 lbs of 

seed per acre. For carinata, we used 

projected 2022 yields of 1,865 lbs of 

seed per acre.25

Carinata has a higher percentage of oil 

per pound of seed than soybeans. 

Soybeans are approximately 18% oil by 

mass, therefore crushing one pound of 

soybeans yields 0.18 pounds of oil. In 

comparison, carinata seeds can contain 

up to 44% oil.26 The difference in oil 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices 23001 

Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 

76. 387–392, available at: http://pubs.aic.ca/doi/

pdf/10.4141/cjps96_069. 

27For more details on the greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with agricultural inputs, see 

‘‘Carinata data and calculations—for docket’’ on 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0093. 

28Based on communication with USDA, sulfur 

can also be a beneficial fertilizer component for 

oilseeds such as carinata and soybeans, dependent 

on local soil characteristics, at application rates of 

up to 10–20 lbs/acre. There are multiple options for 

sulfur application as part of a liquid or dry granular 

mixture that also contain phosphorous and 

nitrogen. The emissions for fertilizer rates provided 

in Table 3 capture the likely range of impacts 

associated with the variety of application options, 

including ones containing sulfur. 

29USDA, Federal Noxious Weed List, http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/

weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf. 

30USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service State 

Noxious-Weed Seed Requirements Recognized in 

the Administration of the Federal Seed Act, 2014, 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/

getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5090172. 

31SCS Global Services, Certification Evaluation 

Report, Roundtable on Sustainable Biomass, http:// 

rsb.org/pdfs/reports/RSB_PGF-Biofuel_

SummaryRPT_InitialEvaluation111513.pdf. 

32USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica 

carinata A. Braun (Brassicaceae) –Ethiopian 

mustard, 2014. 

33USDA, Weed Risk Assessment for Brassica 

carinata A. Braun (Brassicaceae)—Ethiopian 

mustard. 2014. 

yield was taken into account when 

calculating the emissions per ton of 

feedstock oil included in Table 3. As 

shown in Table 3, lifecycle GHG 

emissions from feedstock production for 

carinata and soybeans are relatively 

similar when factoring in variations in 

oil yields per acre and fertilizer, 

herbicide, pesticide, and petroleum 

use.27

TABLE 3—INPUTS FOR CARINATA AND SOYBEAN PRODUCTION FOR PROJECTED 2022 YIELDS 28

Carinata Soybeans (varies by region) 

Inputs 

(per acre) 

Emissions 

(per ton carinata oil) 

Inputs 

(per acre) 

Emissions 

(per ton soybean oil) 

N20 ................................................. N/A ......................... 584–869 kg CO2eq ........... N/A ......................... 449.0–661.1 kg CO2eq. 

Nitrogen Fertilizer ........................... 40–80 lbs ............... 160–321 kg CO2eq ........... 3.5–8.2 lbs ............. 23.2–79.1 kg CO2eq. 

Phosphorus Fertilizer ..................... 15–30 lbs ............... 21–41 kg CO2eq ............... 5.4–21.4 lbs ........... 13.5–64.8 kg CO2eq. 

Potassium Fertilizer ....................... 0–10 lbs ................. 0–9 kg CO2eq ................... 3.1–24.3 lbs ........... 5.3–48.5 kg CO2eq. 

Herbicide ........................................ 2.75–2.75 lbs ......... 79–79 kg CO2eq ............... 0.0–1.3 lbs ............. 2.4–69.6 kg CO2eq. 

Pesticide ......................................... 0–0 lbs ................... 0–0 kg CO2eq ................... 0.1–0.8 lbs ............. 12.4–50.2 kg CO2eq. 

Diesel ............................................. 3.5–3.5 gal ............. 107–107.1 kg CO2eq ........ 3.8–8.9 gal ............. 227.9–622.3 kg CO2eq. 

Gasoline ......................................... 0–0 gal ................... 0–0 kg CO2eq ................... 1.6–3.0 gal ............. 93–151.4 kg CO2eq 

Total ........................................ ................................ 950–1426 kg CO2eq ......... ................................ 961–1443 kg CO2eq. 

5. Potential Invasiveness 

Carinata is not listed on theFederal 

noxious weed list.29 In a USDA 

document listing state noxious-weed 

seed requirements, twenty states 

include restrictions for unspecified 

species of the Brassica genus, indicating 

limitations on the use of the plant. 

Although other species of Brassica are 

specified in some states, the carinata 

species is not explicitly identified.30

Regarding invasiveness, an evaluation of 

carinata in Canada by the Roundtable on 

Sustainable Biofuels concluded that 

invasiveness potential is deemed to be 

low and not difficult to remedy, if 

remedy is needed.31 A weed risk 

assessment by USDA found that carinata 

poses a moderate weed risk potential 

and concluded that carinata should 

undergo further evaluation.32 Unlike 

some other biofuel feedstocks evaluated 

under the RFS program for invasiveness, 

USDA did not find strong evidence of 

carinata causing impacts in 

anthropogenic (e.g., cities, suburbs, 

roadways), production (e.g., agriculture, 

nurseries, forest plantations, orchards), 

or natural systems. However, there is a 

high level of uncertainty regarding 

carinata’s spread and impact potential 

due to incomplete knowledge about its 

traits. This uncertainty raises concerns 

about the threat of invasiveness and 

may require remediation activities that 

would cause additional GHG emissions. 

Because carinata does not pose as great 

an invasiveness risk as Arundo donax 

and Pennisetum purpureum, EPA 

believes that monitoring and reporting 

requirements similar to those for 

Arundo donax and Pennisetum 

purpureum would be appropriate, but 

does not expect to apply all of the Risk 

Management Plan (RMP) requirements 

that exist for those feedstocks. We 

would expect to impose monitoring and 

reporting requirements similar to 40 

CFR 80.1450 (b)(1)(x)(A)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), 

and (v) and 80.1450 (b)(1)(x)(A)(3), (4), 

(5), and (7). In addition, a letter 

documenting the feedstock grower’s 

compliance with all of the relevant 

federal, state, regional, and local 

requirements related to invasive species 

would be required. With these 

requirements in place, we would 

assume that there are no GHG emissions 

associated with potential invasiveness 

when carinata is used as a biofuel 

feedstock. EPA is taking comment on 

the invasiveness concerns of carinata 

and the appropriateness of the 

referenced requirements in mitigating 

those concerns. 

6. Crushing and Oil Extraction 

EPA evaluated the seed crushing and 

oil extraction process and compared the 

lifecycle GHG emissions from this stage 

for soybean oil and carinata oil. EPA 

assumed the processing of carinata 

would be similar to soybeans, canola, 

and camelina. Because carinata seeds 

produce more oil per pound than 

soybeans, the lifecycle GHG emissions 

associated with crushing and oil 

extraction are lower for carinata than 

soybeans per pound of feedstock oil 

produced. 

There is not a significant amount of 

industry data on energy used for 

crushing and oil extraction of carinata. 

Based on data provided in the petition 

submitted, and EPA’s standard 

emissions factors for electricity and 

natural gas, we estimate that the GHG 

emissions from crushing and oil 

extraction are 92 kgCO2e/ton carinata 

oil. For comparison, in the analysis for 

the March 2010 final rule, the GHG 

emissions from crushing and oil 

extraction were estimated to be 426 

kgCO2e/ton soybean oil. As a 

conservative estimate, we propose to 

assume that the GHG emissions related 

to crushing and oil extraction are the 

same for carinata as for soybeans. 

Similar to soybeans, a press cake is 

also produced when carinata is crushed 

and the oil is extracted. Little is known 

at this time about the possible beneficial 

use of carinata cake. Carinata press cake 

contains glucosinolates, which may be 

toxic to animals in large 

concentrations.33 However, the heat 

produced from crushing carinata seeds 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23002 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices 

34Carinata meal (solvent extracted) is approved 

for feed use at quantities up to 10% of total diet 

dry matter in Canada by the Candian Food 

Inspection Agency (CFIA). Letter from W. 

Gwayumba, Ph.D. sent to EPA in email from Sandra 

Franco on July 9, 2014. The Brassica genus (not 

carinata explicitly) is approved by the U.S. Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) through a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the 

Association of American Feed Control Officials 

(AAFCO) U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

Memorandum of Understanding Between The U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration and The Association 

of American Feed Control Officials (MOU 225–07– 

7001) http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/

PartnershipsCollaborations/

MemorandaofUnderstandingMOUs/

DomesticMOUs/ucm115778.htm. It is important to 

note that all animal feed products must be approved 

by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

before they can be sold in the United States. 

Nothing in EPA’s analysis should be construed as 

an official federal government position regarding 

the approval or disapproval of carinata press cake 

as an animal feed. Only FDA is authorized to make 

that determination. 

35 J. Brown and M.J. Morra, GlucosinolateContaining Seed Meal as a Soil Amendment to 

Control Plant Pests. 2000–2002, National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR–510– 

35254, at 15 (2005), available at http://

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf; L. Furlan, C. 

Bonetto, A. Finotto, L. Lazzeri, L. Malaguti, G. 

Patalano, W. Parker (2010), The efficacy of 

biofumigant meals and plants to control wireworm 

populations, Industrial Crops and Products 31: 245– 

254. 

36The transesterification process that EPA 

evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel 

derived from soybean oil feedstock is described in 

section 2.4.7.3 (Biodiesel) of the Regulatory Impact 

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

R–10–006). The hydrotreating process that EPA 

evaluated for the March 2013 rule for biofuel 

derived from camelina oil feedstock is described in 

section II.A.3.b of the March 2013 rule (78 FR 

14190). 

may reduce the toxicity of the press 

cake, or carinata press cake could be 

mixed in low amounts with other seed 

meal for use as animal feed.34

Alternatively, carinata press cake could 

be used as a biofumigant.35 In our 

modeling of soybean oil for the March 

2010 RFS rule, the FASOM and FAPRI– 

CARD models included the use of the 

soy meal (sometimes referred to as press 

cake) co-product as livestock feed. In 

our modeling, the use of soy meal as 

livestock feed displaced the need for 

other similar feed products and 

therefore impacted the relative prices 

and production of crop and livestock 

products. These crop and livestock 

impacts were reflected in the land use 

change, livestock, and agricultural 

sector GHG emissions impacts estimated 

for biofuels produced from soybean oil. 

Although EPA modeling results did not 

isolate the GHG impacts of the soy meal 

co-product, we believe that overall the 

soy meal co-product lowered the GHG 

emissions associated with soybean oilbased biofuels. Similarly, we believe 

that any use of the carinata press cake 

would provide an additional benefit 

(i.e., lower GHG emissions) not reflected 

in our lifecycle GHG emissions analysis 

of carinata oil. Based on our analysis of 

carinata oil, which does not consider 

use of the press cake, we have found 

that the agricultural, livestock, and land 

use change emissions associated with 

producing carinata oil are less than or 

equal to the corresponding emissions 

associated with producing soybean oil. 

Therefore, any beneficial use of the 

carinata press cake (e.g., as livestock 

feed or boiler fuel) would only serve to 

lower the GHG emissions associated 

with carinata oil relative to the 

corresponding emissions for soybean 

oil. 

B. Feedstock Distribution 

EPA’s assessment, based on the 

following reasoning, is that GHG 

emissions from feedstock distribution 

will be the same for carinata as such 

emissions for soybeans. Because 

carinata contains more oil per pound of 

seed, as discussed above, the energy 

needed to move the carinata before oil 

extraction would be lower than 

soybeans per gallon of oil produced. To 

the extent that carinata is grown on 

more disperse fallow land than 

soybeans and would need to be 

transported further, the energy needed 

to move the carinata could be higher 

than soybeans. Therefore, we believe we 

may assume for purposes of GHG 

emissions assessment that the GHG 

emissions associated with transporting 

carinata and soybeans to crushing 

facilities will be the same. Carinata and 

soybean oils are similar in terms of 

density and energy content; therefore, 

we also assumed that the GHG 

emissions from transporting the oil from 

a crushing facility to a biofuel 

production facility would be the same 

for the two different feedstocks. 

C. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG 

Emissions 

Compared to soybean oil, carinata oil 

has comparable GHG emissions per ton 

of oil from crop inputs and crushing and 

oil extraction, and lower GHG emissions 

per ton of oil from direct and indirect 

land use change. Carinata and soybean 

oils are also likely to have similar GHG 

emissions from feedstock distribution. 

Therefore, we believe that the feedstock 

production and transport portion of the 

lifecycle GHG emissions associated with 

carinata are likely to be similar to or less 

than the GHG emissions for the 

corresponding portion of the lifecycle 

analysis for soybean oil. EPA’s purpose 

in evaluating petitions under 40 CFR 

80.1416 is not to prepare a precise 

lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of 

every fuel type, but to gather sufficient 

information on which to inform its 

decision of whether proposed biofuels 

qualify under the program in terms of 

lifecycle GHG emissions reduction. 

Based on our comparison of carinata oil 

to soybean oil, EPA proposes to use, in 

its future evaluations of petitions 

seeking to use carinata oil as a feedstock 

for biofuel production, an estimate of 

the GHG emissions associated with the 

cultivation and transport of carinata oil 

that is the same as that which we have 

used for soybean oil, on a per ton of oil 

basis. Although EPA could conduct a 

more detailed analysis, we do not belive 

it is necessary for purposes of the 

determinations EPA must make in 

responding to petitions. EPA solicits 

comment on this proposed approach. 

D. Fuel Production and Distribution 

Carinata oil has physical properties 

that are similar to soybean and camelina 

oil, and is suitable for the same 

conversion processes as these 

feedstocks. In addition, the fuel yield 

per pound of oil is expected to be the 

same for each of these feedstocks. After 

reviewing comments received in 

response to this Notice, we will 

combine our evaluation of agricultural 

sector GHG emissions associated with 

the use of carinata oil feedstock with 

our evaluation of the GHG emissions 

associated with individual producers’ 

production processes and finished fuels 

to determine whether the proposed 

pathways satisfy CAA lifecycle GHG 

emissions reduction requirements for 

RFS-qualifying renewable fuels. Based 

on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG 

emissions attributable to the production 

and transport of carinata oil feedstock, 

EPA anticipates that fuel produced from 

carinata oil feedstock through the same 

transesterification or hydrotreating 

process technologies that EPA evaluated 

for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel 

derived from soybean oil and the March 

2013 RFS rule for biofuel derived from 

camelina oil would qualify for biomassbased diesel (D-code 4) RINs or 

advanced (D-code 5) RINs.36 However, 

EPA will evaluate petitions for fuel 

produced from carinata oil feedstock on 

a case-by-case basis. 

III. Summary 

EPA invites public comment on its 

analysis of GHG emissions associated 

with the production and transport of 

carinata oil as a feedstock for biofuel 

production. EPA will consider public 

comments received when evaluating the 

lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel 

production pathways described in 

petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 

80.1416 which use carinata oil as a 

feedstock. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Notices 23003 

Dated: April 17, 2015. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09618 Filed 4–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or 

Bank Holding Company 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank 

or bank holding company. The factors 

that are considered in acting on the 

notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of 

the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the offices of the Board of Governors. 

Interested persons may express their 

views in writing to the Reserve Bank 

indicated for that notice or to the offices 

of the Board of Governors. Comments 

must be received not later than May 11, 

2015. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas 

City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice 

President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas 

City, Missouri 64198–0001: 

1. R. Dean Phillips, Las Vegas, 

Nevada; to acquire voting shares of West 

Point Bancorp, Inc., and thereby 

indirectly acquire voting shares of F & 

M Bank, both in West Point, Nebraska; 

and Town & Country Bank, Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, April 21, 2015. 

Michael J. Lewandowski, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09561 Filed 4–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice–PM–2015–02; Docket No. 2015– 

0002; Sequence No. 6] 

Notice of Availability for the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the U.S. Department of State Foreign 

Affairs Security Training Center in 

Nottoway County, Virginia 

AGENCY: General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act, GSA has prepared and filed with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed 

development of a U.S. Department of 

State (DOS), Bureau of Diplomatic 

Security (DS), Foreign Affairs Security 

Training Center (FASTC) in Nottoway 

County, Virginia. GSA is the lead 

agency; cooperating agencies are DOS, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and 

National Guard Bureau. The Final EIS 

also documents compliance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966. 

DATES: The Final EIS is now available 

for review. The GSA Record of Decision 

will be released no sooner than 30 days 

after EPA publishes its Notice of 

Availability of the Final EIS in the 

Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS may be 

viewed online at http://www.state.gov/

recovery/fastc. Paper copies may be 

viewed at the repositories listed under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abigail Low, GSA Project Manager; 20 

N 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107; 

215–446–4815; or email FASTC.info@

gsa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The purpose of the 

proposed FASTC site in Nottoway 

County is to consolidate existing 

dispersed ‘‘hard skills’’ security training 

functions to provide effective, efficient 

training specifically designed to enable 

foreign affairs personnel to operate in 

today’s perilous and dangerous overseas 

environment. Hard skills training is 

practical, hands-on training in firearms, 

explosives, anti-terrorism driving 

techniques, defensive tactics, and 

security operations. Such training 

improves security and life safety for the 

protection of U.S. personnel operating 

abroad. The proposed FASTC would fill 

a critical need, identified in the 2008 

report to the U.S. Congress, for a 

consolidated training facility. A central 

facility would improve training 

efficiency and provide priority access to 

training venues from which DS may 

effectively conduct hard skills training 

to meet the increased demand for welltrained personnel. The proposed FASTC 

would train 8,000 to 10,000 students 

annually. 

The Final EIS was prepared to 

evaluate the environmental 

consequences of site acquisition and 

development of FASTC on three 

adjacent land parcels at the Virginia 

Army National Guard Maneuver 

Training Center Fort Pickett (Fort 

Pickett) and Nottoway County’s Local 

Redevelopment Authority (LRA) area in 

Nottoway County, Virginia. 

The proposed site is 1,350 acres with 

an additional 12 acres for relocation of 

an existing tank trail and scheduled use 

of a 19 acre Fort Pickett range. The site 

is surrounded by compatible land uses 

within Fort Pickett. The total area of 

disturbance for construction of driving 

tracks, mock urban environments, 

explosives and firearms ranges, and 

administrative and service areas would 

be 407 acres. Utilities would be 

installed or relocated along existing 

roadways or within areas planned for 

development. 

GSA published its Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS in the Federal Register 

at 76 FR 61360 on October 4, 2011. A 

public scoping meeting was held in 

October 2011 during the 30 day public 

scoping period. The Draft EIS was 

released on October 26, 2012, and a 

public information meeting was held on 

November 7, 2012 during the 45-day 

public comment period. The Draft EIS 

evaluated Build Alternatives 1 and 2 

and the No Action Alternative. 

In early 2013, all efforts and work on 

the proposed site at Fort Pickett and 

Nottoway County’s LRA area were put 

on hold pending additional due 

diligence and reviews at an existing 

federal training site in Georgia. As part 

of this due diligence effort, DOS 

conducted site visits to the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, 

Georgia. During this time period, DOS 

also assessed the scope and size of the 

FASTC project and determined a 

smaller platform was more fiscally 

prudent. In April 2014, the earlier DOS 

selection of the proposed site for FASTC 

at Fort Pickett and Nottoway County 

was reaffirmed by the Administration. A 

Master Plan Update was prepared in 

2014 to incorporate the adjustments in 

the FASTC program. 

A Supplemental Draft EIS was 

published in the Federal Register at 80 

FR 8311 on January 9, 2015, and a 

public information meeting was held 

January 26, 2015, during the 45-day 

public comment period. The 

Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated Build 

Alternative 3 and the No Action 

Alternative, and provided responses to 

public comments on the 2012 Draft EIS. 

Build Alternative 3 was developed 

based on the 2014 Master Plan Update. 

Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were no 

longer feasible because of changes in the 

program and were eliminated from 

further evaluation. 

Current Efforts: The Final EIS 

designates Build Alternative 3 as the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES