[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53585-53587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14126]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2024 / 
Notices  

[[Page 53585]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Docket No. USDA-2024-0003]


Procedures for Quantification, Reporting, and Verification of 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With the Production of Domestic 
Agricultural Commodities Used as Biofuel Feedstocks

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is seeking public input on 
procedures for the quantification, reporting, and verification of the 
effect of climate-smart farming practices on the greenhouse gas (GHG) 
net emissions estimates associated with the production of domestic 
(i.e., grown in the U.S.) agricultural commodities used as biofuel 
feedstocks. Agricultural management practices that mitigate GHG 
emissions and/or sequester soil carbon can be integrated into GHG 
analysis to reflect the differing GHG outcomes of feedstocks based on 
their production. However, many clean transportation fuel programs 
currently do not assign lower carbon intensity (CI) estimates (i.e., 
lower lifecycle GHG emissions of the fuel per unit of energy) to crops 
grown with climate-smart practices relative to the same crops grown 
with conventional farming practices. This Request for Information seeks 
information on practices that have the potential to mitigate GHG 
emissions and/or sequester carbon, and quantification, reporting, and 
verification approaches for the GHG outcomes associated with domestic 
agricultural commodities used as biofuel feedstocks.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 25, 2024, to be assured of 
consideration.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning 
this notice by either of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket No. USDA-2024-0003. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included 
in the record, will be made available to the public, and can be viewed 
at: https://www.regulations.gov. Please be advised that the identity of 
the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made 
available to the public on the internet at the address provided above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact William Hohenstein, Director 
of Office of Energy and Environmental Policy, at (202) 720-0450, or via 
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is 
considering a rulemaking to establish voluntary standards for 
quantifying, reporting, and verifying GHG outcomes for domestic 
agricultural commodities used as biofuel feedstocks and grown with 
practices that mitigate GHG emissions and/or sequester soil carbon. 
These standards would be available for consideration by entities that 
operate international, national, or state clean transportation fuel 
policies.
    In establishing these standards, USDA may utilize its authorities 
under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, section 2709 (16 
U.S.C. 3845: Environmental services markets). Section 2709 directs the 
Secretary to ``establish technical guidelines that outline science-
based methods to measure the environmental services benefits from 
conservation and land management activities in order to facilitate the 
participation of farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in emerging 
environmental services markets.'' It also directs the Secretary to 
``give priority to the establishment of guidelines related to farmer, 
rancher, and forest landowner participation in carbon markets.'' It 
further directs the Secretary to establish verification guidelines, 
including ``the role of third-parties in conducting independent 
verification of benefits produced for environmental services markets 
and other functions.'' Because of the existence of clean transportation 
fuel programs, there is an existing environmental service market for 
biofuel feedstocks. The potential incorporation of feedstocks produced 
with climate-smart practices into these programs represents an emerging 
environmental service market opportunity for farmers.
    Feedstock production contributes a significant percentage of the 
GHG emissions associated with crop-based biofuel production. However, 
clean transportation fuel programs typically base their feedstock 
production emissions estimates on average farming practices which 
include a range of both conventional and climate-smart farming 
practices. There is an opportunity to improve the empirical basis and 
verifiability of the effects of climate-smart farming practices on net 
GHG emissions, and to quantify net GHG emissions reductions more 
specifically to only those feedstocks grown with such practices. 
Standards that differentiate between crops grown with and without 
climate-smart farming practices could incentivize further adoption of 
climate-smart farming and corresponding reductions in GHG emissions.
    A greater adoption of climate-smart farming practices could lower 
overall GHG emissions associated with biofuel production and provide 
other environmental benefits, such as improved water quality and soil 
health. Accurate quantification and verification are important to 
ensure that net GHG emissions reductions are real. Improving the 
ability to accurately quantify and verify the GHG outcomes of climate-
smart farming practices can also provide additional benefits, including 
improved credibility and confidence in a variety of climate-smart 
markets.
    The information received in response to this notice will inform a 
potential USDA rulemaking on these topics as well as future 
improvements to quantification methodologies.

Questions for Commenters

Qualifying Practices

    (1) Which domestic biofuel feedstocks should USDA consider 
including in its analysis to quantify the GHG emissions associated with 
climate smart farming practices? USDA is considering corn, soybeans, 
sorghum, and spring canola as these are the dominant biofuel feedstock 
crops in the United States. USDA is also considering winter oilseed 
crops

[[Page 53586]]

(brassica carinata, camelina, pennycress, and winter canola). Are there 
other potential biofuel feedstocks, including crops, crop residues and 
biomaterials, that USDA should analyze?
    (2) Which farming practices should USDA consider including in its 
analysis to quantify the GHG emissions outcomes for biofuel feedstocks? 
Practices that can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with 
specific feedstocks and/or increase soil carbon sequestration may 
include, but are not limited to: conservation tillage, no-till, 
planting of cover crops, incorporation of buffer strips, and nitrogen 
management (e.g., applying fertilizer in the right source, rate, place 
and time, including using enhanced efficiency fertilizers, biological 
fertilizers or amendments, or manure). Should practices (and crops) 
that reduce water consumption be considered, taking into account the 
energy needed to transport water for irrigation? Should the farming 
practices under consideration vary by feedstock and/or by location? If 
so, how and why?
    (3) For practices identified in question 2, how should these 
practices be defined? What parameters should USDA specify so that the 
GHG outcomes (as opposed to other environmental and economic benefits) 
resulting from the practices can be quantified, reported, and verified?
    (4) For practices identified in question 2, to what extent do 
variations in practice implementation affect the overall GHG benefits 
of the practice (e.g., the date at which cover crops are harvested or 
terminated)? What implementation strategies maximize the GHG benefits 
of these climate-smart agriculture practices?

Quantification

    (5) What scientific data, information, and analysis should USDA 
consider when quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions outcomes of 
climate-smart agricultural practices and conventional farming 
practices? What additional analysis should USDA prioritize to improve 
the accuracy and reliability of the GHG estimates? How should USDA 
account for uncertainty in scientific data? How should USDA analysis be 
updated over time?
    (6) Given the degree of geographic variability associated with each 
practice, on what geographic scale should USDA quantify the GHG net 
emissions of each practice (e.g., farm-level, county-level, state, 
regional, national)? What are the pros and cons of each scale? How 
should differences in local and regional conditions be addressed?
    (7) How should USDA estimate the GHG emissions and soil carbon 
fluxes of baseline crop production?
    (8) Where models can be used to quantify changes in greenhouse gas 
emissions and sinks associated with climate smart agricultural 
practices, which model(s) are most appropriate for quantifying the 
greenhouse gas effects of these practices? What are the tradeoffs of 
different modeling approaches for accurately representing carbon, 
methane, and nitrous oxide fluxes under climate smart agricultural 
practices?
    (9) How should net greenhouse gas emissions, including soil carbon 
sequestration, be attributed among crops produced in a rotation, for 
example crops grown in rotation with one or multiple cover crops?
    (10) To what extent do interactions between practices either 
enhance or reduce the GHG emissions outcomes of each practice? Where 
multiple practices are implemented in combination, should the impacts 
of these practices be measured individually or collectively?
    (11) How should the GHG emissions of nutrient management practices 
(e.g., applying fertilizer according to the ``4Rs'' of nutrient 
management--right place, right source, right time, and right rate; 
variable rate technology; enhanced efficiency fertilizer application; 
manure application) be quantified? What empirical data exist to inform 
the quantification? What factors should USDA consider when quantifying 
the GHG emissions outcomes of these practices?

Soil Carbon

    (12) How should the GHG outcomes of soil management practices that 
can increase carbon sequestration or reduce carbon dioxide emissions 
(e.g., no-till, cover crops) be quantified? What empirical data exist 
to inform the quantification? Over what time scale should practices 
that sequester soil carbon be implemented to achieve measurable and 
durable GHG benefits?
    (13) For practices that can increase soil carbon sequestration or 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions, how should the duration and any 
interruptions of practice (e.g., length of time practice is continued, 
whether the practice is put in place continually or with interruptions) 
be considered when assessing the effects on soil carbon sequestration?
    (14) How should the baseline rates of change in soil carbon and 
uncertainty around the greenhouse gas benefits of these practices be 
characterized? Does this uncertainty and variability depend on the type 
or longevity/permanence of the practice?

Verification and Recordkeeping

    (15) What records, documentation, and data are necessary to provide 
sufficient evidence to verify practice adoption and maintenance? What 
records are typically maintained, why, and by whom? Where possible, 
please be specific to recommended practices (e.g., refer to practices 
identified in question two).
    (16) How can market participants leverage remote sensing and/or 
other emergent technologies as an option to verify practice adoption 
and maintenance?
    (17) Are there existing reporting structures that can potentially 
be leveraged?
    (18) Should on-site audits be used to verify practice adoption and 
maintenance and if so, to what extent, and on what frequency?
    (19) If only a sample of farm/fields are audited on-site, what 
sampling methodology should be used to determine the sample of farms 
selected for an on-site audit, and how can the sampling methodology 
ensure that selected farms are representative across geographies, 
crops, and other factors?
    (20) What system(s) should be used to trace feedstocks throughout 
biofuel feedstock supply chains (e.g., mass balance, book and claim, 
identity preservation, geolocation of fields where practices are 
adopted)? What data do these tracking systems need to collect? What are 
the pros and cons of these traceability systems? How should this 
information be verified?

Verifier Qualifications/Accreditation Requirements

    (21) How could USDA best utilize independent third-parties (i.e., 
unrelated party certifiers) to bolster verification of practice 
adoption and maintenance and/or supply chain traceability? What 
standards or processes should be in place to prevent conflicts of 
interest between verifiers and the entities they oversee?
    (22) What qualifications should independent third-party verifiers 
of practice adoption and/or supply chain traceability possess?
    (23) What independent third-party verification systems currently 
exist that may be relevant for use in the context of verifying climate-
smart agricultural practices (as identified under questions 1 and 2) 
and/or biofuel supply chains?
    (24) How should oversight of verifiers be performed? What 
procedures should be in place if an independent third-party verifier 
fails to conform to verification and audit requirements, or otherwise 
conducts verification inappropriately?

[[Page 53587]]

    (25) What procedures should be in place to prevent potential 
inaccurate or fraudulent claims regarding feedstock production 
practices or chain of custody claims, how should monitoring occur to 
identify such inaccurate claims, and what should the remedy be when 
such inaccurate claims are discovered?
    (26) What preemptive measures are appropriate to guard program 
integrity against both potential intentional fraud and inadvertent 
reversal or nonaccrual of credited GHG emissions benefits?

William Hohenstein,
Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-14126 Filed 6-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-GL-P