[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5497-5519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00975]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 2100
RIN 0503-AA82
[Docket No. USDA-2024-0003]
Technical Guidelines for Climate-Smart Agriculture Crops Used as
Biofuel Feedstocks
AGENCY: Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim rule with request for comment establishes
technical guidelines for quantifying, reporting, and verifying the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with agricultural production
of biofuel feedstock commodity crops grown in the United States in the
context of environmental service markets. Specifically, the rule
establishes guidelines for the reporting and verification of practices
and technologies used in the production of certain commodity crops that
result in lower greenhouse gas emissions or increases in carbon
storage. These practices are referred to in the context of this rule as
climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices. The guidelines established
through this rule articulate an approach for farm producers to quantify
the GHG emissions associated with crops produced using one or more CSA
practices. The guidelines also articulate a framework for how
information regarding GHG emissions, resulting from the production of
biofuel feedstock commodity crops, could be reported and tracked
throughout the supply chain.
DATES:
Effective: January 17, 2025.
Comment Date: We will consider comments that we receive by March
18, 2025.
ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this rule. You may
submit comments through the:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID USDA-2024-0003. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
Comments will be available for viewing online at
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Hohenstein, Director of the
Office of Energy and Environmental Policy, (202) 720-0450,
[email protected]. Individuals who require alternative means
for communication should contact the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-
2600 (voice and text telephone (TTY)) or dial 711 for
Telecommunications Relay Service (both voice and text telephone users
can initiate this call from any telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This rule establishes new technical guidelines for crop commodities
that are used as biofuel feedstocks. USDA is issuing this rule to
establish guidelines for the quantification, reporting, and
verification of GHG reduction benefits resulting from implementation of
CSA practices in the production of commodities that are used as biofuel
feedstocks in the context of environmental services markets. CSA
practices are agricultural management practices, systems, and
technologies that have been demonstrated to generally reduce GHG
emissions or increase soil carbon sequestration. Greater adoption of
CSA practices could lower overall GHG emissions associated with biofuel
production and provide other environmental benefits, such as improved
water quality and soil health.
These technical guidelines are intended for the purpose of biofuels
production. USDA's authority allows for the establishment of guidelines
related to emerging environmental services markets. At this time, the
biofuel market represents a clear market opportunity for climate-smart
feedstocks. Producing a carbon offset is a different policy context
that would require a different set of standards. These guidelines do
not constitute a carbon offset protocol.
The net GHG emissions associated with a defined set of CSA
practices will be quantified as explained below in the Methodology for
Calculating Carbon Intensities used in USDA Feedstock Carbon Intensity
Calculator (USDA FD-CIC) section, once USDA FD-CIC is finalized. USDA
will shortly publish USDA FD-CIC on its website at https://www.usda.gov/usda-fdcic for peer-review purposes, beta testing, and to
obtain public feedback.
Crop production generates GHG emissions, including from soil carbon
released during tillage and nitrous oxide emissions resulting from
fertilizer use, among other sources. When such crops are used as
feedstocks to produce biofuels, the GHG emissions associated with their
production contribute a significant percentage of the overall GHG
emissions associated with crop-based biofuel production. For instance,
feedstock emissions account for approximately 56 percent and 55 percent
of the direct emissions from producing corn ethanol and soybean
biodiesel, respectively. The GHG emissions associated with feedstock
crop production can be reduced through CSA practices, in turn reducing
the lifecycle GHG emissions of a biofuel. To date, most existing
programs have relied on assumptions about average or typical farming
practices to estimate emissions associated with biofuel feedstock
production. To improve the empirical basis and verifiability of the
effects of CSA practices on net GHG emissions, and to quantify net GHG
emissions reductions specifically attributed to those feedstocks grown
with climate-smart practices, USDA developed this rule to establish
technical guidelines for CSA crops used as biofuel feedstocks. This
interim rule allows for the differentiation and quantification of
carbon intensities associated with the production of CSA crops used as
biofuel feedstocks, through USDA FD-CIC, upon its finalization.
This interim rule is authorized by the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 110-246)),
[[Page 5498]]
Sec. 2709, (16 U.S.C. 3845), which authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture 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 farm producers, ranchers, and forest landowners in
emerging environmental services markets and 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.
Regulations to implement the programs of Chapter 58 of Title 16 of
the U.S. Code, as specified in 16 U.S.C. 3846, and the administration
of those programs are to be made as an interim rule effective on
publication, with an opportunity for notice and comment. Here, the
guidelines relate to the administration of a program for participation
in environmental markets. Accordingly, USDA is issuing this interim
rule effective on publication with request for comment. This interim
rule will facilitate farm producers' ability to participate in
environmental service markets associated with biofuel production by
establishing guidelines for quantification, reporting, and verification
of GHG emissions resulting from the production of agricultural crops
grown using CSA practices. It also establishes verification guidelines
to increase certainty that the practices claimed are implemented
according to the standards established by this rule. While USDA is not
creating an environmental service market through this rule, USDA is
making these guidelines available for consideration in international,
national, or state clean transportation fuel policies in accordance
with 16 U.S.C. 3845, as described above.
Currently, very few U.S.-based clean transportation fuel programs
or policies (including private and government programs) have standards
or guidelines for climate-smart agricultural practices, such as those
described in this rule, to account for the emissions reductions they
generate.
Those policies or programs that contain some or all of the elements
of the standards in this rule (including CSA practice standards,
recordkeeping, quantification, reporting and verification of emissions
reductions of such practices) are smaller in scale or were only
recently developed and at the pilot stage. For example, the U.S.
Department of the Treasury (Treasury) 40B Sustainable Aviation Fuel
(SAF) tax credit provides one example of a biofuel policy that
incorporated emissions reductions for crops produced using CSA
practices. This tax credit provided per gallon credits for the sale or
use of SAF defined as achieving a life cycle GHG emissions reduction of
at least 50 percent as compared to petroleum-based jet fuel. Treasury
and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance for the tax credit included
a safe harbor for the USDA CSA Pilot Program, making SAF produced using
soybeans or corn employing a bundle of CSA practices eligible for a
higher tax credit than SAF produced using crops produced without the
bundle of CSA practices. For the purpose of the SAF tax credit, the CSA
practice standards, quantification, reporting and verification
requirements only pertained to the one bundle of CSA practices eligible
under the guidance so are not broadly applicable. As the guidance
stated, Treasury and IRS established the CSA safe harbor on a pilot
basis to advance the development of CSA verification mechanisms,
recognizing the potential emissions reduction benefits of CSA and also
the limitations of currently available verification mechanisms,
empirical data, and modeling.
California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and the Carbon
Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA)
incentivize transportation fuels that have lower GHG emissions, but
they do not have standards for the production of biofuel feedstocks or
standards that would credit farm producers for the use of CSA
practices. The American Ethanol Council through a USDA Regional
Conservation Partnership Program grant is working with state partners
in several Midwestern states to increase adoption of CSA practices and
quantify emissions reductions associated with the use of these
practices by paying farmers a premium for adoption of conservation
practices that have demonstrated emission benefits including no-till/
strip till, cover crops, and nutrient management practices. However,
while the program has practice adoption standards it does not provide a
whole system for the quantification, recordkeeping, and verification of
emissions benefits through the biofuel supply chain.
Given that no comprehensive standards for CSA practice adoption,
quantification of emissions benefits, recordkeeping, verification and
reporting of emissions benefits currently exist in the U.S. for
biofuels markets, USDA is issuing this rule to establish guidelines for
the quantification, reporting, and verification of GHG reduction
benefits resulting from implementation of CSA practices in the
production of commodities that are used as biofuel feedstocks.
This rule specifies technical guidelines to establish a method of
calculating the climate benefits of certain agricultural practices.
However, other programs, including federal programs such as tax
credits, may require additional or different verification or other
procedures in order to effectively administer the requirements of their
statutes. Accordingly, while these guidelines may inform the subsequent
development of requirements for other programs, such requirements will
be established through rulemaking or guidance by the relevant agencies
or organizations, taking into account specific statutory requirements,
program features, and/or administrative feasibility and constraints.
Should any provision of this rule be deemed invalid, USDA intends
that the remaining provisions continue with full effect in order to
effectuate the purposes of the statute.
Methodology for Calculating Carbon Intensities Used in USDA FD-CIC
This section explains the methodology that was used to calculate
values included in USDA FD-CIC. Over the past year, USDA has worked
with academic institutions and experts to develop USDA FD-CIC, which,
once finalized, would provide users with a crop-specific, per-bushel
carbon intensity associated with biofuel feedstock crops using one or
more CSA practices. Net emissions are expressed as a carbon intensity
(CI), which is a measure of the total carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-
eq) emissions per unit of crop produced (that is, per bushel).
In general, USDA FD-CIC quantifies the CI (in GHG emissions per
bushel) of three domestic feedstock crops (field corn, soybeans, and
sorghum) produced using one or more specified CSA practices. The USDA
FD-CIC model is separate and distinct from models specific to other
programs or incentives, for example, 40BSAF-GREET, and the values
calculated by USDA FD-CIC may not be representative of values generated
by or applicable to other program or incentive-specific models. The
USDA FD-CIC feedstock CI estimates reflect the use of specified CSA
practices. CSA practices may lead to changes in:
soil organic carbon (SOC) storage,
[[Page 5499]]
direct and indirect nitrous oxide emissions
(N2O),
upstream emissions from fertilizer production, and
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from on-farm
energy consumption.
The effectiveness of CSA practices in reducing the CI of feedstocks
varies by region. The USDA FD-CIC model contains feedstock CI estimates
for each CSA practice and combination of practices for each county.
The underlying models used to generate values in USDA FD-CIC have
undergone extensive peer-review. Further, under USDA's authorities in
section 2709 of the 2008 Farm Bill, in April 2024, USDA published
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Agriculture and Forestry: Methods
for Entity Scale Inventory.\1\ The publication of these methods adhered
to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines ``Final
Information Quality bulletin for Peer Review,'' which was published on
January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664-2677), and this document has been
designated by OMB as a highly influential scientific assessment. The
method recommended for quantifying changes in soil carbon stocks and
nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils refers to the DAYCENT
ecosystem model, which is used as described in the USDA FD-CIC
documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/office-energy-and-environmental-policy/climate-change/greenhouse-gas-inventory-and-assessment-program/quantifying-greenhouse-gas-fluxes-methods-entity-scale-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA will shortly publish USDA FD-CIC on its website at https://www.usda.gov/usda-fdcic for peer-review purposes, beta testing, and to
obtain public feedback. As part of this process of testing and feedback
prior to finalization, the public will have the opportunity to examine
and download USDA FD-CIC to experience how it would operate. Additional
details documenting USDA FD-CIC will be available at https://www.usda.gov/usda-fdcic. USDA will evaluate and respond to the public
feedback and peer-review provided on USDA FD-CIC, after which USDA will
take final action to establish an operative version. Before such final
action is taken, users should consider values from USDA FD-CIC as
preliminary and should not rely upon them.
Definitions
This rule establishes definitions in 7 CFR 2100.002 for terms that
are relevant to biofuel feedstock production; agricultural practices;
the biofuels supply chain; processing crops in the biofuel supply
chain; and recordkeeping and verification.
The rule defines the following terms relevant to biofuel feedstock
production: ``farm producer,'' ``biofuel,'' ``biomass,'' ``feedstock,''
``biofuel feedstock crop,'' ``carbon intensity,'' ``conventional
crop,'' ``climate-smart agriculture (CSA) crop,'' and ``reduced-carbon
intensity (reduced-CI) crop.'' In the context of this rule, ``carbon
intensity (CI),'' ``climate-smart agriculture (CSA) crop,'' and
``reduced carbon intensity (reduced-CI) crop'' are relevant to biofuel
feedstock production in that the rule contains guidance for on-farm CSA
practices that can lead to reduced-CI biofuel feedstocks. The
definitions of ``agricultural expert,'' ``farm,'' ``farm producer,''
``biofuel,'' ``biomass,'' ``feedstock,'' and ``biofuel feedstock crop''
align with existing USDA definitions. The definition for ``carbon
intensity'' also aligns with language used by California's LCFS.
The rule defines the following terms relevant to agricultural
practices: ``climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices,'' ``cover
crop,'' ``intensive tillage,'' ``leguminous cover crop,'' ``no-till,''
``crop interval,'' ``nutrient management,'' ``planting green,''
``reduced till,'' and ``soil tillage intensity rating (STIR).'' This
rule defines these terms based on existing USDA definitions, relying
heavily on USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) practice
definitions used in existing conservation programs. These definitions
provide the necessary context for subpart F of 7 CFR part 2100, which
lays out the parameters for CSA practices that farm producers can
implement to produce CSA crops.
The rule defines the following terms relevant to the biofuels
supply chain: ``farm,'' ``first point of aggregation,'' ``intermediary
entity,'' and ``biofuel refiner.'' These terms distinguish the various
entities in the biofuels supply chain referred to in this rule. As
outlined in subparts D and E of 7 CFR part 2100, recordkeeping and
verification standards differ among farms, first points of aggregation,
intermediary entities, and refiners. This approach was informed by the
International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) standards
for verifying entities within the SAF production supply chain for the
Carbon Offsetting Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).
The rule defines the following terms relevant to processing crops
in the biofuel supply chain: ``process,'' ``crushing yield,'' ``input
product,'' ``processed product,'' and ``reduced-CI processed product.''
These terms are defined for the purpose of this rule to clarify how
reduced-CI biofuel feedstocks pass through the supply chain and are
processed into new material forms, including ``reduced-CI processed
products.'' The ``crushing yield'' is referenced in subpart D of 7 CFR
part 2100 as both a recordkeeping requirement and a component of the
mass balance equation. Similarly, the terms ``process,'' ``input
product,'' and ``processed product'' are used to describe the
activities of various entities in the supply chain and the
recordkeeping standards for the inputs and outputs they handle. As
noted in subpart D in Sec. 2100.033, there are additional
recordkeeping standards for entities that process, sell, or purchase
reduced-CI processed products.
This rule defines the following terms relevant to recordkeeping and
verification: ``accreditation,'' ``audit,'' ``biofuel feedstock
report,'' ``farm producer attestation,'' ``mass balance system,''
``operational control,'' ``third party verifier,'' ``field,'' and
``management unit.'' These terms are used primarily in subpart D of 7
CFR part 2100, which describes the chain of custody standards for 7 CFR
part 2100, and Subpart E, which describes the auditing and verification
process. The ``mass balance system'' definition aligns with ISO
22095:2020, which establishes international standards for chain of
custody systems used in certification and compliance schemes. The terms
``field,'' ``management unit,'' ``operational control,'' ``biofuel
feedstock report,'' and ``farm producer attestation'' are used in
describing the practice and recordkeeping standards for farm producers
for 7 CFR part 2100. These terms reflect definitions used in the
implementation of USDA farm-level programs. Broadly, definitions in
this section reflect industry standards around auditing and
verification within chain of custody systems.
Applicability
Under authorities in section 2709 of the 2008 Farm Bill, this rule
establishes 7 CFR 2100.001 through 2100.053 to define and explain
technical guidelines for quantifying, reporting, and verifying the GHG
emissions associated with production of biofuel feedstock commodity
crops using CSA practices and grown in the United States. The primary
purpose of this rule is to establish a system for tracking information
relevant to environmental service markets, namely the CI of crops grown
with CSA practices that are ultimately used as biofuel feedstock.
[[Page 5500]]
This rule specifies domestic biofuel feedstock crops, which include
field corn, soybeans, and sorghum, as defined in subpart B in Sec.
2100.011 for which a reduced-CI could be quantified using USDA FD-CIC,
upon finalization. These domestic crops were included because they
account for the majority of biomass feedstock crops used to produce
transportation biofuels in the United States. Furthermore, there is
modeling and data available to support the quantification of carbon
intensity for these feedstock crops. Grain from field corn or sorghum
is used to produce ethanol, while vegetable oils, predominately from
soybeans, are used for the production of biodiesel, renewable diesel,
and SAF. Intermediate oilseeds (for example, camelina, carinata and
pennycress) and canola were excluded from this rule given their current
limited use in domestic biofuel production and because there is
insufficient data on how CSA practices affect the GHG emissions
associated with their production.
Crops produced using certain CSA practices are referred to as CSA
crops and are defined in Sec. 2100.011. Crops produced without the use
of CSA practices are referred to as conventional crops. CSA crops
generally have a reduced CI compared to a conventional crop of the same
type and produced in the same location. Depending on the specific crop
being produced, CSA crops defined in this rule are grown using one or
more of the following practices: no-till, reduced till, cover crops,
nitrification inhibitors, split in-season nitrogen application, and no
fall nitrogen application. These practices were chosen because they can
be used in the production of field corn, soybeans, or sorghum and
because scientific evidence demonstrates their effectiveness at
reducing GHG emissions or sequestering additional carbon. This rule
only includes practices which are used on-field and excludes those
practices that occur on field edges or farm borders, in order to
associate emissions reductions with the production of commodities on a
per acre or per output (for example, bushels) basis.
CSA crops and conventional crops may be physically commingled
beginning at the farm if both are being produced. This rule allows for
mixing of CSA and conventional crops because segregating crops after
harvest and throughout the supply chain is infeasible at farms and
entities receiving the crops, especially where farms or other entities
lack facilities to physically separate and store crops. Commingling of
crops produced using different management techniques is standard
practice. Crops that are sold with an associated reduced-CI are
referred to as reduced-CI crops and may be composed of solely CSA crops
or a combination of CSA crops and conventional crops. If CSA crops and
conventional crops are produced at the same farm, the commingled
reduced-CI crops must have an associated CI calculated using a weighted
average approach, as specified in Sec. 2100.020, Quantification of CI.
This rule can be applied to entities involved in the supply chain
for biofuel feedstocks, which spans from the farm to the biofuel
refiner. This includes entities that may be producing, storing,
processing, or more generally, taking ownership of reduced-CI crops or
reduced-CI processed products (that is, a product derived from reduced-
CI crops, such as soybean oil) in the supply chain. These entities may
include grain elevators or other intermediary storage facilities,
processing facilities, and biofuel refiners. Entities that produce or
take ownership of reduced-CI crops or reduced-CI processed products are
subject to recordkeeping and verification standards.
The scope of this rule extends to the purchase of reduced-CI crops
or reduced-CI processed products up to the point of a biofuel refiner.
The production and carbon intensity of biofuels, such as ethanol or
biodiesel made with reduced-CI crops or processed products, is not
covered under this rule.
Quantification of Farm-Level Crop-Specific Carbon Intensities
Under USDA's authorities in the 2008 Farm Bill in section 2709,
this rule establishes technical guidelines for use in developing a
procedure to measure environmental services benefits. Environmental
service benefits are estimated as a reduction in net GHG emissions
resulting from crop production with CSA practices compared to a
national average baseline. Net emissions are expressed as CI, which is
a measure of the total CO2-eq emissions per unit of crop
produced (that is, per bushel). Generally, the use of CSA practices
lowers the CI per bushel and results in environmental service benefits
relative to a national average baseline CI.
In Subpart C, this rule establishes voluntary technical guidelines
for the quantification of CI. CIs are quantified for a specific crop at
the farm-level (that is, they account for a farm's total volume of
production of a specific crop) on an annual basis, derived from field
or management unit-level CIs that depend on the CSA practices used on
those fields. For example, a farm that produces field corn in 2025 and
both field corn and soybeans in 2026 would have a 2025 field corn CI, a
2026 corn CI, and a 2026 soybean CI.
Consider a farm that uses different production practices for
soybeans on different fields or management units: a portion of the
fields or management units use conventional production methods
(typically highest CI), a portion use cover crops (typically lower CI),
and a portion use both cover crops and no-till (typically lowest CI).
The farm-level CI for soybeans is a weighted average of the three CI
values. The weighted average CI accounts for the relative production of
soybeans under conventional, cover crop, and cover crop plus no-till
management.
This rule outlines the steps to quantify a farm-level crop-specific
CI. CI would be quantified using the USDA FD-CIC, upon its
finalization. To quantify CI under this rule, a farm producer would
input field-level management information into USDA FD-CIC. Input
information would include farm location (county and state), crop type
produced, total field or management unit acres, and use of CSA
practices, such as no-till or reduced till; use of a cover crop; timing
of nitrogen fertilizer application; and nitrification inhibitor usage.
USDA FD-CIC output would include a field-level CI for the crop produced
using the specified practices at the farm location. This step would be
repeated for all fields or management units within a farm on which the
crop is grown. In addition to CI for each field or management unit,
USDA FD-CIC could also calculate a weighted farm-level average across
fields growing the same crop. Farm producers would also need to input
information on the fields and management units growing crops without
CSA practices. USDA FD-CIC would assign crops on these fields the
default national average CI. These calculations would generate a farm-
level, crop-specific CI. Further information on USDA FD-CIC,
information requirements and how it is used can be found here: https://www.usda.gov/usda-fdcic.
Chain of Custody and Verification
As described in subpart D, every entity in the supply chain
producing or taking ownership of reduced-CI crops or reduced-CI
processed products covered by this rule must have a system for
maintaining records. All first points of aggregation, intermediary
entities, and biofuel refiners must also be audited annually by an
accredited third-party
[[Page 5501]]
verifier. Crucially, accredited third-party verifiers ensure the
veracity of the underlying crop production practices and estimated
emissions reduction benefits associated with the production of CSA
crops by auditing a sample of the farms supplying reduced-CI crops to
first points of aggregation, as described in subpart E of this rule.
This review is necessary for establishing effective environmental
service markets, as described in section 2709 of the 2008 Farm Bill. In
the case of markets for transportation biofuel feedstocks, this
traceability and verification system could allow for entities such as
farm producers, elevators, other intermediary storage facilities, and
biorefineries to sell products with environmental attributes such as
reduced emissions. In some cases, selling a product with an
environmental attribute could enable these entities to earn a premium
price for growing, handling, and otherwise helping to move reduced-CI
biofuel feedstock through the supply chain.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Standards
As described above, the supply chain for agricultural feedstocks
used in biofuel production begins at a farm and ends at a biofuel
refiner. The first entity to take ownership of reduced-CI feedstock
after the farm is referred to as the first point of aggregation and may
include, but is not limited to, elevators; processors (for example,
crushers); and biofuel refiners. Intermediary entities take ownership
of reduced-CI feedstock or reduced-CI processed product between the
first point of aggregation and biofuel refiner. The biofuel refiner is
the last entity in the supply chain covered by this rule. If a biofuel
refiner sources any reduced-CI crop directly from farms, it is the
first point of aggregation for the quantity of crop coming directly
from farms and is subject to recordkeeping and audit standards
applicable to the first point of aggregation. This rule reflects that
biofuel feedstock supply chains can include different numbers and types
of entities. A biofuel refiner sourcing feedstocks directly from farms
represents a simple supply chain. A more complex supply chain may
involve crop that is purchased by an elevator, subsequently purchased
by crusher for processing, and finally purchased as processed product
by a biofuel refiner.
USDA's authorities in section 2709 of the 2008 Farm Bill direct the
Secretary to establish technical guidelines for use in developing a
protocol to report environmental services benefits and a registry to
collect, record and maintain the benefits measured. The recordkeeping
standards in this rule establish voluntary guidelines for documenting
CI information associated with reduced-CI crops and reduced-CI
processed products at individual entities. Additionally, this rule
establishes voluntary guidelines for reporting CI information between
entities in the supply chain. The recordkeeping standards further
require entities to use a mass balance accounting system, which
constitutes an internal registry system for each entity to record and
maintain the CI associated with reduced-CI crops and the volumes of
those crops used in reduced-CI processed products.
This rule specifies general recordkeeping standards applicable to
all entities as well as specific standards for farms, first points of
aggregation, intermediary entities, and biofuel refiners. All records
must be maintained for 5 years. Recordkeeping standards enable third-
party verification to ensure that entities follow the applicable
standards in this rule.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Standards for Farms
The primary purpose of recordkeeping standards at the farm is to
provide evidence of CSA practices and sale of reduced-CI crops. Farm
producers are required to keep records demonstrating the following:
implementation of CSA practices in accordance with the
standards in this rule (described further in the CSA Practice
Standards: Recordkeeping section below);
evidence of sales of reduced-CI feedstocks; and
documentation of CI calculations completed in USDA FD-CIC,
once finalized.
For reporting purposes, farm producers are required to prepare a
Biofuel Feedstock Report for each crop sold as a reduced-CI crop. The
Biofuel Feedstock Report includes a Farm Producer Attestation and
documentation showing quantification of the farm-level crop-specific
CI. The Farm Producer Attestation is a document attesting that the crop
was produced in accordance with practice standards specified in this
rule and that the farm producer had operational control of fields or
management units where CSA practices were used. The Farm Producer
Attestation also states the total number of bushels of crop produced
and the associated farm-level CI. The Biofuel Feedstock Report also
includes the USDA FD-CIC inputs (that is, CSA practices used) and
output (that is, CI) for each field or management unit on which the
crop was produced, as well as the calculation of the field-level and
farm-level crop-specific CI. When reduced-CI crop is sold, the farm
producer must provide a copy of the Biofuel Feedstock Report to the
first point of aggregation.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Standards for First Points of Aggregation
and Intermediary Entities
First points of aggregation and intermediary entities purchase and
sell reduced-CI crops. They may also process reduced-CI crops, and
purchase or sell reduced-CI processed products. The primary purpose of
recordkeeping standards at these entities is to track the amount of
reduced-CI crops and reduced-CI processed products that are purchased
or sold. Additionally, the rule specifies that first points of
aggregation and intermediary entities must report the volume sold,
associated CI, and provide evidence of third-party verification to the
purchasing entity.
To track the amount of incoming and outgoing reduced-CI crops or
reduced-CI processed products, first points of aggregation and
intermediary entities must operate a mass balance system. Mass balance
is a method of accounting used to track the weight or volume of
products moving through an entity without product segregation. The
weight or volume of reduced-CI crops that is sold should not exceed the
amount purchased. Similarly, the weight or volume of reduced-CI
processed product sold should not exceed the weight or volume purchased
or processed on site from reduced-CI crops. This system allows for
reduced-CI crops to be physically mixed with conventional crops, and
for reduced-CI processed products to be physically mixed with processed
products derived from conventional crops.
This rule requires entities to maintain records that demonstrate
the amounts of reduced-CI crops and reduced-CI processed products, and
associated CIs, moving into and out of the entity. These records
constitute mass balance accounting, in that they can be used to
demonstrate that the amount of reduced-CI crops or processed products
sold from an entity does not exceed the amount that was produced or
purchased. These records also enable a third-party verifier to audit an
entity's mass balance system.
The mass balance can be represented by an equation, which requires
that incoming and outgoing feedstocks must be equivalent over a pre-
defined mass balance time period, for which the outgoing reduced-CI
crops or processed products, with specific CIs, must be
[[Page 5502]]
balanced with the incoming crop or processed product with respective
CIs. Mass balance time periods are continuous so that no gaps between
mass balance periods occur, and each time period may not exceed three
months. Each entity should document the mass balance time period,
complete mass balance calculations for each mass balance time period,
and document results. If reduced-CI crops or processed product is
remaining at the end of a mass balance time period, it is accounted for
as ``ending stored feedstock.'' This product is included as ``beginning
stored feedstock'' in the calculation for the next mass balance time
period. Documentation of the mass balance calculation for each time
period must be provided to the entity's third-party verifier during the
audit. The third-party verifier may request additional records to
verify mass balance calculations during the audit. The following
equation illustrates the mass balance calculation:
incoming feedstocki,c,m + beginning stored feedstock i,c,m = outgoing
feedstocki,c,m + ending stored feedstock i,c,m
Feedstocks (incoming, stored, and outgoing) for entity i are
identified by their carbon intensity, c, and the pre-defined mass
balance time period, m. Incoming feedstocks include those purchased by
entity i in time period m. Outgoing feedstocks must include both sold
and discarded or wasted feedstocks in time period m. Stores of
feedstocks are those maintained by the entity during time period m and
must be accounted for in the mass balance. Entities should record and
account for the quantity of stored feedstock at the start and end of
time period m.
First points of aggregation and intermediary entities that process,
sell, or purchase reduced-CI processed product are subject to
additional recordkeeping standards. In some instances, reduced-CI crop
may be processed before being sold to a biofuel refiner (for example,
soybeans processed into soybean oil). Entities that process reduced-CI
crop are required to track the amount of reduced-CI crop used in
processing, the corresponding amount of reduced-CI processed product,
and the crushing yield. These values must align such that reduced-CI
processed product amount equals the crushing yield multiplied by the
reduced-CI crop amount. These recordkeeping standards provide a
mechanism to continue tracking the original reduced-CI crop amount and
associated CI throughout the supply chain.
Incoming, stored, or outgoing feedstock can include reduced-CI
crops or reduced-CI processed products. To ensure that the mass balance
accounting for entity i appropriately accounts for different forms of
reduced-CI processed products (that is, oils), the entity's crushing
yield must be used to convert reduced-CI processed products back to
their crop volume or weight equivalents using the following equation:
processed feedstock crop equivalent = (processed feedstock)/(crushing
yield)
Recordkeeping Standards for Biofuel Refiners
Biofuel refiners are the last entity in the supply chain covered by
the recordkeeping standards of this rule. The primary purpose of
recordkeeping standards at biofuel refiners is to track the incoming
amount of reduced-CI crops or reduced-CI processed products. Biofuel
refiners must establish a system to track incoming reduced-CI crops or
reduced-CI processed products and associated CIs. If a biofuel refiner
purchases any reduced-CI crop directly from farm producers, it is also
subject to the recordkeeping standards for a first point of
aggregation.
Verification
Third-party verification by accredited verifiers provides
assurances that entities follow the standards specified in this rule.
All entities from the first point of aggregation to the biofuel refiner
must hire a third-party verifier to conduct an audit annually. Evidence
of verification is passed throughout the supply chain. Beginning with
the first point of aggregation, each entity must provide proof of
third-party verification to all subsequent entities to whom they sell
reduced-CI feedstock or reduced-CI processed products.
Farms receive audits as suppliers of the first point of
aggregation, and a sample of farms supplying reduced-CI crops must be
audited by a third-party verifier each year. Per the recordkeeping and
reporting standards in this rule, farm producers must provide the first
point of aggregation with a copy of the Biofuel Feedstock Report which
provides attestation of CSA practices and documents the quantification
of farm-level crop-specific CI. This document can be used by the first
point of aggregation's third-party verifier to collect farm information
and aide in selecting the farm audit sample.
Audits at the first point of aggregation include two parts: an
audit of the first point of aggregation's processes, and audits at a
sample of farms supplying the first point of aggregation with reduced-
CI crop.
In auditing the first point of aggregation's processes, a third-
party verifier must verify that the first point of aggregation is
operating a mass balance system in accordance with the standards in
this rule and has correctly recorded the CI associated with reduced-CI
crops delivered from each farm.
The first point of aggregation must provide its third-party
verifier with information enabling the third-party verifier to select a
random sample of farms to audit. The sample of farms must be selected
by the third-party verifier and the sample size must be at least the
square root of the total number of farms supplying the first point of
aggregation with reduced-CI crop. For example, if a first point of
aggregation purchases reduced-CI crop from 51 farms, the farm audit
sample must include at least 8 farms (the square root of 51 is 7.14
which is rounded up to 8). Taking a square root of suppliers to
determine the minimum sample size aligns with industry accepted
standards in current use, such as the ISCC CORSIA certification program
for SAF. The sample must be selected in a way that is representative of
the supplying farms' characteristics, including types of supplied
feedstock, size of farm, geographic location, and risk of non-
conformity or fraud. Additionally, third-party verifiers should vary
the farms included in a first point of aggregation's audit sample from
year to year.
For farms that are selected for an audit by the first point of
aggregation, the third-party verifier must verify that the CSA
practices and recordkeeping are conducted as specified in this rule.
Additionally, the third-party verifier must verify that the weighted
average calculation of the farm-level crop-specific CI is done
correctly.
If a farm is selected as part of the audit sample for the first
point of aggregation, the farm may be considered exempt from an
additional audit if a third-party verifier previously audited the farm
according to the standards established in this rule for the applicable
year. Farm producers can elect to proactively retain a third-party
verifier, accredited to ISO 14065, to complete an audit at their farm.
This approach allows flexibility for farm producers who may wish to
hire their own third-party verifier, while also maintaining integrity
and upholding standards for third-party verifiers established by this
rule. Farm producers may choose this option to coordinate with already
scheduled audits, or for other reasons. To be considered exempt
[[Page 5503]]
from an additional audit, the farm producer must provide results of the
completed audit to the first point of aggregation's third-party
verifier. It is up to the discretion of the third-party verifier to
determine whether the farm is exempt from an additional audit, or
whether a full or partial audit is necessary.
As defined by this rule, an intermediary entity does not source
reduced-CI crops directly from farm producers. The audit standards for
intermediary entities include third-party verification of the mass
balance system and recordkeeping related to reduced-CI crops or
reduced-CI processed product purchased or sold.
The audit standards for biofuel refiners include verification that
the biofuel refiner operated a system to correctly record the CI
associated with reduced-CI feedstock or reduced-CI processed product.
Additionally, biofuel refiners that are acting as a first point of
aggregation must also follow the audit standards for first points of
aggregation.
Any entity that processes reduced-CI feedstock must comply with
additional audit standards to ensure that the amount of reduced-CI
processed product is calculated correctly, using the facility-level
crushing yield, and that records support mass balance of the product.
All third-party verifiers hired to conduct audits as specified in
this rule must be accredited to ISO 14065: General principles and
standards for bodies validating and verifying environmental information
by a member of the International Accreditation Forum.
CSA Practice Standards: Implementation
This rule establishes implementation standards for specific CSA
practices: reduced till, no-till, cover crops, and specified nutrient
management practices, such as nitrification inhibitors, no fall
application of nitrogen, and split in-season application of nitrogen.
These practices are identified by NRCS as CSA and Forestry (CSAF)
Mitigation Activities and represent a subset of existing NRCS-approved
conservation practices for working lands.\2\ Practices included in this
rule do not include all NRCS CSAF practices. This rule only includes
practices that are relevant to the production of field corn, soybeans,
or sorghum and have appropriate data and quantification methodologies
needed to estimate the associated net emissions. Additionally, some
NRCS CSAF practices were excluded because they only generate net
emissions benefits on land that is not growing crops, such as field
edges or borders. Emissions benefits from such off-field practices
cannot directly be tied to the production of a biofuel feedstock,
making it difficult to assign emissions benefits to the biofuel
feedstock crop and subsequently produced biofuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See USDA NRCS, Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry (CSAF)
Mitigation Activities List for FY2025, August 2024, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/NRCS-CSAF-Mitigation-Activities-List.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The practices included in this rule have demonstrated emissions
benefits that are directly associated with in-field crop production, as
indicated in the NRCS CSAF Mitigation Activity List documentation and
based on the latest data and quantification methodologies available to
USDA.
Reduced Till
The practice of reduced till manages the amount, orientation, and
distribution of crop and other plant residue on the soil surface year-
round while reducing the frequency and intensity of soil disturbing
activities used to grow and harvest crops in systems where the field
surface is tilled prior to planting. The practice of reduced till
increases soil organic carbon (SOC) as a result of decreased soil
disturbance and decreases N2O emissions due to changes in
the soil environment, when compared to intensive till.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See USDA NRCS, Conservation Practice Standard Residue and
Tillage Management, Reduced Till, September 2016, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Residue_And_Tillage_Management_Reduced_Till_345_CPS.pdf.
See also: NRCS, Conservation Practices and Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Information dashboard, https://publicdashboards.dl.usda.gov/t/FPAC_PUB/views/NRCSConservationPracticesandGreenhouseGasMitigation/MitigationSummaries?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y#3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To qualify as reduced tillage under this rule, field(s) or
management unit(s) are permitted to use tillage methods where the
entire soil surface is disturbed by tillage operations such as chisel
plowing, field cultivating, tandem disking, vertical tillage, or ridge
tillage, provided that the STIR value is no greater than 80. STIR \4\
is a numerical value that measures the severity and type of soil
disturbance caused by tillage operations. STIR values range from 0 to
200, with higher values indicating more soil disturbance. The STIR
rating applies to the entire tillage system used in producing a crop.
The components of the rating include tillage type, recommended
equipment operating speed, recommended tillage depth, and surface area
disturbed. The STIR value must include all field operations that are
performed during the crop interval (that is, from the time immediately
following harvest or termination of one cash crop through harvest or
termination of the next cash crop in the rotation, including fallow
periods). Permitted methods are also commonly referred to as mulch
tillage, conservation tillage, or ridge till. Primary inversion tillage
implements (for example, moldboard plow) must not be used, and residues
may not be burned. However, removing residue from the crop planting row
area prior to or as part of the planting operation is allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See USDA NRCS, Soil Intensity Tillage Rating STIR, 2020,
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/Soil-Tillage-Intensity-Rating-Fact-Sheet3-27-2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-Till
The residue and tillage management practice of no-till limits soil
disturbance to manage the amount, orientation and distribution of crop
and plant residue on the soil surface year-round. The practice of no-
till increases SOC as a result of decreased soil disturbance and
decreases N2O emissions due to changes in the soil
environment when compared to both reduced till and conventional
till.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See USDA NRCS, Conservation Practice Standard Residue and
Tillage Management, No Till, September 2016, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Residue_And_Tillage_Management_No_Till_329_CPS_0.pdf.
See also NRCS Conservation Practices and Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Information dashboard. https://publicdashboards.dl.usda.gov/t/FPAC_PUB/views/NRCSConservationPracticesandGreenhouseGasMitigation/MitigationSummaries?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y#3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be considered as no-till under this rule, full-width soil
disturbance must not be performed, from the time immediately following
harvest or termination of one cash crop through harvest or termination
of the next cash crop in the rotation, regardless of the depth of the
tillage operation. Strip tillage and fertilizer injection are
permitted, provided that the STIR value is no greater than 20. Residues
may not be burned. However, removing residue from directly within the
seeding, planting, or transplanting area prior to or as part of the
planting operation is allowed.
Cover Crops
A cover crop may include one or more species of grasses, legumes,
or forbs planted for seasonal protection and soil improvement.
Increased above and below-ground biomass from cover crops can increase
SOC, while N2O may, in
[[Page 5504]]
certain contexts, increase slightly from plant decomposition.\6\ Under
this rule, if legumes are used alone or within a cover crop mix, the
producer should account for nitrogen supplied by the cover crop when
determining nitrogen application rates for the following crop in order
to minimize the risk of increasing direct and indirect N2O
emissions that may result from excess nitrogen. Cover crops that can be
considered under this rule must be seeded in the fall, and interseeding
into a commodity crop is allowed. Cover crops should be seeded as early
as possible and terminated as late as practical (late vegetative growth
stage or later) with termination timing established to minimize the
risk of yield loss and soil moisture depletion.\7\ To qualify under
this rule, cover crops cannot be fertilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See NRCS, Conservation Practices and Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Information dashboard, https://publicdashboards.dl.usda.gov/t/FPAC_PUB/views/NRCSConservationPracticesandGreenhouseGasMitigation/MitigationSummaries?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y#3.
See also Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Greenhouse gas
reduction potential of agricultural best management practices.
October 2019. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-gen4-19.pdf.
\7\ See USDA NRCS, Conservation Practice Standard, Cover Crop,
2024, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/340-nhcp-cps-cover-crop-2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cover crop biomass must not be mechanically harvested or grazed.
Residues must remain on the surface following termination and may not
be burned. Cover crops may be terminated via winter kill, using
herbicide, or by non-soil disturbing mechanical methods (for example,
roller crimper, mowing) in the spring. Planting green, where the
commodity crop is seeded directly into the standing cover crop in the
spring, is allowed.
Nutrient Management
Nutrient management practices included in this rule are:
(1) use of nitrification inhibitors;
(2) no fall application of nitrogen; and
(3) in-season split application of nitrogen.
These practices help to reduce direct and indirect N2O
emissions from biofuel feedstock production, thereby reducing GHG
emissions. To implement any of these nutrient management practices, the
farm producer must develop and document a planned nutrient budget,
yield goal, and applications of, at a minimum, nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium (N-P-K) in pounds per acre prior to implementation. The
nutrient budget must account for all known measurable sources and
removals of N-P-K. The farm producer must base the nutrient budget on
current soil test results or the professional opinion of an
agricultural expert who is employed by the Cooperative Extension System
or the agricultural departments of universities, or other persons
approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), whose
research or occupation is related to the specific crop or practice for
which such expertise is sought.
Nitrification Inhibitor Practice Standards
A nitrification inhibitor is a chemical compound that slows down
the conversion of ammonia to nitrate in soil, a process called
nitrification. Nitrification inhibitors are added to fertilizers and
can help reduce N2O emissions.\8\ To qualify for the
nitrification inhibitor practice under this rule, the producer must
apply a nitrification inhibitor with all synthetic nitrogen (synthetic
N) applications, including any pre-emergent applications, to the
field(s) or management unit(s). Nitrification inhibitors must be
defined by the Association of American Plant Food Control Officers
(AAPFCO) and be accepted for use by the State fertilizer control
official, or similar authority, with responsibility for verification of
product guarantees, ingredients (by AAPFCO definition) and label
claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Li T, Zhang W et al., Enhanced-efficiency fertilizers
are not a panacea for resolving the nitrogen problem, Glob Chang
Biol, Feb 2018 Feb, 24(2):e511-e521, doi: 10.1111/gcb.13918. Epub
2017 Nov 2. PMID: 28973790. See also: ICF International. Greenhouse
Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal
Production within the United States. Prepared for USDA Climate
Change Program Office, February 2013. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/GHG_Mitigation_Options.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Fall Application Practice Standards
Applying fertilizer in the spring at the time of planting results
in improved nutrient availability and can reduce overall fertilizer
needs compared to fall application, also reducing N2O
losses.\9\ To qualify for the no fall application practice under this
rule, field(s) or management unit(s) must be managed according to a
nutrient budget, the first nitrogen application must occur within 30
days prior to or at the time of planting and no nitrogen fertilizer may
be applied in the fall of the previous year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See ICF International, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and
Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United
States, Prepared for USDA Climate Change Program Office, February
2013, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/GHG_Mitigation_Options.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Split In-Season Application Standards
Split in-season fertilizer application refers to fertilizer that is
applied with a minimum of two applications--an initial application at
the time of planting with the remainder applied in one or more
applications during the growing season. Split in-season application
increases nitrogen use efficiency by applying fertilizer according to
plant needs, and can also reduce overall fertilizer needs, which also
reduces N2O losses.\10\ To qualify for the split in-season
application practice under this rule, field(s) or management unit(s)
must be managed according to a nutrient budget. At least 75 percent of
total crop nitrogen needs, as defined by the state LGU, must be applied
after crop emergence. Post emergent nitrogen may be reduced based on
crop scouting, in-season soil sampling or analysis, or plant tissue
sampling or analysis. Nutrient availability should be timed to crop
uptake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Chan Guo, Xufei Liu, and Xuefei He, A global meta-
analysis of crop yield and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions
under nitrogen fertilizer application, Science of The Total
Environment, Volume 831, 2022, 154982, ISSN 0048-9697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSA Practice Standards: Recordkeeping
In addition to specifying the implementation standards for each CSA
practice, as described above, this rule also establishes recordkeeping
standards for each CSA practice. Required records are necessary to
provide evidence that farm producers implemented CSA practices
according to the rule. Records must be retained for 5 years and made
available to third-party verifiers to conduct audits. The rule does not
specify the type or origin of required records; instead, the rule lists
examples of record types such as physical documentation (for example,
paper forms, invoices, receipts, seed tags), digital files (including
from farm management software), data generated by farm equipment (for
example, precision agriculture equipment), remote sensing data,
georeferenced and timestamped photographs, and data and records used
for participation in USDA government programs. The range of allowable
record options is designed to increase flexibility and minimize burden
for farm producers, who may already maintain various types of records
depending on their preferences, participation in government or private
programs, or previous CSA practice implementation. However, the records
must be sufficient for the third-party verifier to verify compliance
with the
[[Page 5505]]
relevant practice standard for the specified time period.
Across all CSA practices, farm producers must maintain records
demonstrating the location and acreage of any field or management unit
where the CSA practice was implemented, as well as the total bushels of
crop harvested from those fields or management units. These are basic
parameters required for calculating the carbon intensity of the
resulting crop. Farm producers with multiple fields or management units
must keep their records separately for each of these fields or
management units to ensure accurate accounting.
For farm producers implementing no-till or reduced till, the
following practice-specific records must be maintained:
a list of all field operations that may cause surface
disturbance, including tillage, fertilizing, planting, controlling
pests, seeding, and harvesting;
data on these operations, including the depth and width of
disturbance and average speed of operation;
equipment used; and
dates that each operation occurred.
These records are necessary for calculating and verifying the STIR
value, a quantitative measure of soil disturbance. Calculation of the
STIR value on each field or unit provides a consistent way for farm
producers and third-party verifiers to evaluate whether a soil
management system qualifies as no-till or reduced till.
For farm producers implementing cover crops, the following
practice-specific records must be maintained:
documentation that cover crop seeds were purchased and
received in sufficient quantities for the designated field(s) or
unit(s);
the date, method, and rate of seeding;
the total acreage seeded across each field or unit; and
time-stamped and georeferenced photographic evidence of
establishment.
Records of cover crop purchase and seeding alone is not sufficient
to verify that a GHG benefit occurred, because the GHG benefits of
cover crops result from biomass accumulation due to plant growth. Time-
stamped and georeferenced photographic evidence of establishment is
also necessary to ensure that the CSA practice, and associated GHG
benefits, can be verified.
For farm producers implementing nutrient management practices, the
following practice-specific records must be maintained:
details on the source and type of nutrients applied;
date, method, and location of nutrient applications;
planting-seeding date for the field or unit where the
practice was implemented; and
the total acreage within each field or unit where the
nutrient management practice was applied.
Additionally, the producer must provide a nutrient budget that
demonstrates all crop nutrient needs for N-P-K, as well as a soil test
dated within 2 years of the development of the nutrient budget. Because
nutrient needs vary greatly across crops, fields, and management units,
a tailored nutrient budget is necessary to assess the nutrient needs of
each crop. Evaluation of the nutrient budget can inform the crop-
specific and geography-specific rates and types of nutrient management
that may result in a GHG benefit.
USDA Request for Information and Public Consultation Sessions
On June 27, 2024, USDA published a Request for Information (RFI)
requesting public input on Procedures for Quantification, Reporting,
and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with the
Production of Domestic Agricultural Commodities Used as Biofuel
Feedstocks (89 FR 53585-53587). The RFI indicated that USDA was
considering a rule 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 or sequester soil carbon. USDA requested public
input on several topics that are addressed in this rule. Specifically,
the RFI asked for input on qualifying practices, quantification
approaches for CSA practices, soil carbon, verification and
recordkeeping, and verifier qualifications and accreditation
requirements. A total of 256 unique comments were posted to
regulations.gov in response to the RFI. The top sources of comments
were from individuals (45 comments), industry trade groups (33),
biofuel groups (29), agriculture industry and technology groups (28),
and crop commodity groups (26). Other groups submitting comments
included environmental advocacy groups, organizations involved in
carbon markets, farm groups, state and local government agencies, and
farm bureaus.
Approximately 52 comments were supportive of USDA's efforts to
facilitate quantifying, reporting, and verifying emissions benefits
associated with CSA practices for biofuel feedstocks. Broadly, these
commenters recognized the potential benefits and opportunities
associated with using CSA practices in biofuel feedstock production,
including market opportunities and the enhanced sustainability of
agricultural systems. These commenters agreed with the need for more
accurate accounting of emissions benefits associated with using CSA
practices and supported the establishment of guidance in this area. In
addition, supportive comments from farm producers, agricultural groups,
and industry representatives emphasized the opportunity to establish a
simple and inclusive program which facilitates the participation of
many different types of farm producers in CSA markets.
Approximately 11 comments were generally opposed to the production
of biofuels as a means to reduce GHG emissions and were therefore
opposed to any potential USDA rule efforts on this topic. Some opposing
comments argued that expanding crop-based biofuel production will lead
to greater GHG emissions and additional environmental harms such as air
and water pollution. Commenters argued that alternatives such as
electrification would be more effective for reducing GHG emissions from
the transportation sector. Some opposing comments also expressed
concerns with the validity of GHG reductions from CSA practices,
pointing out that there is a risk of double-counting benefits from
these practices and that incentives for CSA practices may fail to meet
``additionality'' requirements.
Approximately 193 comments maintained neutral or mixed positions on
a rule. Comments spanned many perspectives on the purpose, scope, and
ideal execution of a rule. Flexibility and inclusivity were widely
shared themes, with commenters asking for inclusion of a wide range of
crops, a wide range of CSA practices, and the inclusion of early CSA
practice adopters. However, commenters differed on a number of issues,
including verification requirements, chain of custody models, and
specific crops and practices that should be considered. Commenter
perspectives on these topics are described in the sections below.
In addition to publishing the June 2024 RFI, in October 2024, USDA
hosted three stakeholder consultation sessions over Zoom in accordance
with requirements in 16 U.S.C. 3845, which directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to consult with the public when establishing technical
guidelines for measuring environmental services benefits from
conservation and land management activities. Specifically, section 3845
requires consultation with the following groups:
[[Page 5506]]
(1) Federal and State government agencies;
(2) Nongovernmental interests, including:
(A) farm, ranch, and forestry producers,
(B) financial institutions involved in environmental services
trading,
(C) institutions of higher education with relevant expertise or
experience,
(D) nongovernmental organizations with relevant expertise or
experience, and
(E) private sector representatives with relevant expertise or
experience; and
(3) Other interested persons, as determined by the Secretary.
USDA invited groups from each of these specified categories and
posted public information and registration links for the consultation
sessions to the Office of Energy and Environmental Policy website. A
total of 203 individuals registered for the Zoom calls, with 201
individuals joining at least one of the three consultation sessions.
Attendees included private citizens such as farmers, industry
representatives, and representatives from farm and environmental
groups. A total of 74 individuals elected to speak during the calls to
offer their perspectives.
Insights shared in the public consultation sessions echoed comments
received in response to the RFI. Some speakers directly echoed portions
of their RFI comments, while others shared personal experiences with
CSA and biofuels production. Multiple speakers asked for the inclusion
of intermediate cover crops and oilseed crops. Parallel to a request
for more flexibility was an opposition to ``bundling,'' rules that
would require farm producers to simultaneously implement a specified
group of CSA practices. Many speakers emphasized that a bundling
approach limits farmer participation; instead, they favored the use of
a more flexible approach to CSA practices, as well as a quantification
system that reflects the impact of individual CSA practices.
Speakers also frequently highlighted their perspectives on
traceability systems throughout the consultation calls. Many speakers
expressed support for either book and claim or mass balance systems.
Supporters of book and claim underscored the benefits of decoupling
carbon intensities from bushels of feedstock, giving farmers greater
market flexibility and increasing farmer participation and eligibility
across a broader geography. Others were in favor of a mass balance
system which would align with ISCC traceability programs, simplify the
chain of custody, and maintain the participation of grain elevators.
USDA completed an analysis of comments submitted through the RFI
and documented viewpoints shared during the public consultation
sessions. Both the RFI and the consultation sessions provided valuable
insights into the preferences, perspectives, and concerns of groups
potentially impacted by the USDA rule. Insights gained from these
public engagements were informative to the drafting of the rule.
RFI Comments Regarding Biofuel Crops
In response to which crops should be considered for inclusion in a
USDA policy on biofuel feedstock crop production, RFI commenters
primarily and widely supported the inclusion of traditional row crops.
Field corn was the most frequently mentioned, as it currently
represents 98 percent of U.S. ethanol industry feedstock production.
Soybeans, sorghum, and spring canola were also frequently endorsed as
major biofuel feedstocks, reflecting their established role in current
U.S. biofuel production. These mainstream feedstocks were often
recommended due to their existing infrastructure, and well-understood
production practices. Many commenters emphasized the importance of
maintaining these established feedstocks while gradually expanding
options to ensure market stability and reliable supply chains.
Many commenters also recommended including winter oilseed crops,
with particular emphasis on brassica carinata, camelina, pennycress,
and winter canola. These crops were highlighted for their potential to
provide soil health benefits, offer crop diversification advantages,
and generate additional farm income through double-cropping systems.
Notably, commenters pointed out that winter canola has 20 to 30 percent
greater yield potential than spring canola, and several organizations
detailed their ongoing research and development efforts with these
winter oilseed varieties, particularly in regions like the Northern
Great Plains.
Commenters also recommended a diverse array of alternative
feedstocks for consideration, ranging from perennial grasses like
switchgrass and miscanthus to woody crops such as hybrid poplar and
shrub willow. Agricultural residues and byproducts, including corn
stover, wheat straw, and sugar beet processing remnants, were
frequently mentioned as potential feedstock sources. Several commenters
advocated for the inclusion of emerging options like Kernza (an
intermediate wheatgrass), various biowaste streams, and crop residues,
emphasizing the importance of maintaining flexibility to incorporate
new feedstock sources as technology and research advance. Many stressed
the value of a diverse feedstock portfolio to mitigate risks associated
with market fluctuations, crop failures, and regional variations.
RFI Comments Regarding CSA Practices
RFI commenters overwhelmingly emphasized the importance of soil
management practices, particularly conservation tillage and no-till
operations, as foundational CSA practices. These practices received
strong support due to their well-documented benefits in reducing soil
disturbance and enhancing carbon sequestration, though several
commenters noted the need for regional flexibility in implementation.
To support the argument for including these practices, some commenters
referenced extensive research demonstrating their effectiveness, though
some stakeholders raised important considerations about the permanence
of carbon sequestration benefits and suggested the need for monitoring
practice duration and potential reversals. Many recommended using
existing NRCS standards to define specific parameters for these
practices, ensuring consistent implementation and reliable GHG
emissions quantification.
Many commenters advocated for the inclusion of nitrogen management
practices and presented evidence for including a range of approaches
from enhanced efficiency fertilizers to precise application timing and
placement. Arguments for these practices emphasized their direct impact
on reducing N2O emissions, a potent GHG. Many commenters
emphasized the importance of the ``4R'' approach (right source, right
rate, right time, and right place) and provided specific examples of
how technologies like variable rate application and nitrogen
stabilizers can significantly reduce emissions while maintaining crop
yields. The recommended inclusion of these practices was further
supported by their potential to reduce both direct field emissions and
indirect emissions associated with fertilizer production and transport.
Integrated systems practices, including cover cropping, buffer
strips, and crop rotations, were strongly recommended based on their
multiple environmental benefits and GHG reduction potential.
Stakeholders presented evidence that these practices could sequester
carbon and also improve soil health, reduce erosion, enhance
biodiversity, and create more resilient agricultural systems. However,
commenters emphasized the need for flexible implementation frameworks
that allow farmers to adapt practices to their specific contexts while
[[Page 5507]]
maintaining measurable GHG benefits. Many suggested using established
NRCS conservation practice standards as a foundation while
incorporating new technologies and emerging practices as they are
validated.
Some commenters also recommended the inclusion of water
conservation practices, based on evidence of both direct and indirect
GHG reduction benefits. Stakeholders detailed how improved irrigation
efficiency, precision irrigation systems, and soil moisture monitoring
can significantly reduce energy usage associated with water
transportation and irrigation operations. Several commenters provided
specific examples of technologies, such as subsurface drip irrigation-
effluent systems, that demonstrate measurable GHG reductions while
delivering co-benefits like improved nutrient management and water
quality. Proponents of including water conservation practices also
pointed to regional variations in water availability and the increasing
importance of water efficiency in agricultural sustainability.
RFI Comments Regarding Quantification Approaches: Data and Modeling
RFI commenters strongly emphasized the critical importance of
utilizing robust scientific data and empirical evidence to accurately
quantify GHG emissions and carbon sequestration from agricultural
practices. Many commenters advocated for a multi-model ensemble
approach that would combine outputs from different models and compare
them with empirical data, suggesting the use of the lower bound of the
95 percent confidence interval for crediting purposes. A fundamental
tension emerged between the scientific rigor of complex biogeochemical
modeling and the practical needs of implementation, with some
stakeholders favoring a more straightforward practice-based approach
using lookup tables and simple regressions. Many commenters supported
regional and county-level modeling as a means to account for variations
in soil types, weather conditions, and management practices. Several
commenters highlighted specific models and tools for consideration,
including DAYCENT, COMET, and Field to Market's Sustainability Metrics,
while emphasizing the importance of regular updates to incorporate new
data and technologies.
RFI commenters identified an extensive array of existing data
sources and tools that could be leveraged for quantifying GHG emissions
from agricultural practices. Frameworks including the R&D GREET model,
CORSIA protocol, and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
guidelines were frequently cited as established frameworks that could
inform a policy approach. Federal programs and databases, including the
Agricultural Resource Management Survey, the USDA the Agricultural
Resource Management Survey, and the USDA Greenhouse gas Reduction
through Agricultural Carbon Enhancement network, were highlighted as
valuable resources that already contain relevant data for emissions
quantification. Private sector contributions, including data from
carbon markets and third-party verification entities, were identified
as important complementary sources to public datasets. The integration
of academic research, particularly from LGUs and research institutions,
was consistently emphasized as crucial for building a comprehensive
understanding of agricultural GHG emissions and mitigation potential.
RFI commenters proposed a range of quantification approaches,
reflecting the complexity of measuring agricultural GHG emissions.
Process-based models like the Soil and Water Assessment Tool+ model,
DAYCENT, and DeNitrification-DeComposition model were suggested
alongside empirical approaches using emission factors and direct
measurements. A key debate emerged between supporters of regional-scale
quantification using standardized factors and advocates for more
granular field-level measurements. Stakeholders emphasized the
importance of standardized protocols and verification processes to
ensure consistency and comparability across different approaches. The
need to consider full life cycle impacts, including upstream emissions
and indirect land-use changes, was highlighted as crucial for
comprehensive emissions accounting. Many commenters recommended
aligning with established international standards while maintaining
flexibility to accommodate regional variations in agricultural
practices.
Data gaps in current empirical research emerged as a significant
concern among some commenters, particularly regarding the
quantification of GHG emissions from various agricultural practices.
Commenters expressed concerns about limitations in data availability
for specific practices such as cover crops, nutrient management, and
residue management, with commenters noting that most agricultural
research has only recently begun focusing on climate mitigation
potential. Geographic and regional data limitations were highlighted,
with stakeholders cautioning against over-reliance on broad-scale data
that might miss important local variations. The lack of consistent
historical baseline data was identified as a key challenge, especially
for early adopters of climate-smart practices.
RFI Comments Regarding Quantification Approaches: Geographic Scale
RFI commenters emphasized that geographic variability significantly
influences the effectiveness and outcomes of CSA practices,
necessitating careful consideration in any quantification framework.
Many commenters advocated for a regional approach that could
effectively balance accuracy with scalability, with several
specifically recommending USDA's Farm Resource Regions as an
appropriate foundation for regional quantification. The complexity of
geographic considerations was highlighted by concerns about potentially
creating ``winners and losers'' based on regional differences, which
could inadvertently shift production patterns and impact farm incomes
in certain areas. Some stakeholders suggested that while geographic
variability must be acknowledged, the quantification system should
strive to maintain relative parity in potential benefits across regions
to ensure equitable program implementation.
The debate over appropriate geographic scale for GHG emissions
quantification revealed a tension between precision and practicality.
While many commenters supported farm or field-level quantification for
its accuracy and ability to capture site-specific variations, others
advocated for district, county, or state-level approaches that could
better balance precision with administrative feasibility. Several
commenters argued that county-level quantification aligns well with
existing USDA survey capabilities and the R&D GREET Feedstock
Calculator methodology. A notable suggestion emerged for a hybrid
approach that would use field-level data where available while
maintaining broader-scale defaults as a ``safety valve'' to ensure
program inclusivity and account for unique circumstances.
The importance of addressing local and regional conditions in GHG
emissions quantification was consistently emphasized across stakeholder
comments. Variations in soil types, climate, topography, precipitation,
and growing season length were identified as critical factors
[[Page 5508]]
affecting practice effectiveness and GHG benefits. Several commenters
recommended leveraging existing resources such as LGUs and extension
services to better understand and account for local variations. Some
stakeholders specifically suggested using established regional
classifications like NRCS MLRAs or crop reporting districts to group
areas with similar conditions, while others advocated for investment in
enhanced monitoring technologies like Eddy flux towers to better
quantify regional differences in GHG emissions and sequestration
potential.
RFI Comments Regarding Verification and Recordkeeping
RFI commenters emphasized the importance of balancing robust
verification standards with the need to minimize administrative burdens
on farm producers. Many suggested that existing USDA conservation
program data and third-party tools could effectively streamline
documentation processes. Some commenters were concerned about the
potential for CSA opportunities to become a vehicle for collecting
excessive farm data, with several commenters noting that only 3 percent
of eligible producers currently participate in carbon markets due to
high transaction costs and administrative burdens. While accurate
documentation was broadly acknowledged as crucial for transparency and
long-term impact assessment, stakeholders emphasized that standards
should remain practical and cost-effective.
RFI commenters provided extensive recommendations for specific
recordkeeping approaches, emphasizing the need for practical
documentation that builds upon existing farm management practices. Key
recommended records included field boundary maps, crop types, planting
and harvest dates, fertilizer and chemical application records, waste-
management practices, tillage documentation, cover crop information,
yield data, and equipment usage metrics, with many commenters noting
these records are typically already maintained for USDA programs.
Integration with established frameworks like USDA organic certification
processes, the USDA CSA pilot program referenced in Treasury and IRS's
guidance on the Section 40B SAF credit, and USDA's Conservation
Evaluation and Monitoring Activity was recommended to avoid creating
entirely new documentation systems. The importance of allowing
flexibility in record formats was emphasized to accommodate diverse
farming operations and technological capabilities, with particular
consideration for smaller farms and operations with limited resources.
Commenters also stressed the value of accepting attestations from
farmers and third-party service providers like agricultural retailers,
cooperatives, and independent crop consultants, particularly during the
initial implementation phase.
Remote sensing and emerging technologies received significant
attention from commenters as potential tools for streamlining
verification processes while maintaining program integrity. Many
commenters highlighted how satellite imagery, drone technology, and
precision agriculture data could effectively verify practices like
cover crops, tillage patterns, and buffer strip implementation, with
some noting that technologies like Sentinel-2 imagery can identify
buffer strips with over 80 percent accuracy. However, several
stakeholders cautioned that remote sensing technologies have
limitations, particularly in measuring three-dimensional stored carbon
or verifying practices not visible from above, suggesting these tools
should complement rather than replace traditional verification methods.
The integration of these technologies with farm management software,
Internet of Things devices, and blockchain was recommended to enhance
data collection and verification efficiency, though commenters
emphasized the need for standardized processes and algorithms to ensure
consistency and reliability across different regions and farming
operations.
Most RFI commenters advocated for limited on-site audits to
maintain cost-effectiveness and practicality. They recommended
following established verification frameworks like those used by the
California LCFS and the ISCC Program, which typically require annual
verification through a combination of on-site visits and remote
monitoring. Commenters suggested giving farmers a presumption of
compliance, with auditing practices kept to a reasonable minimum while
still deterring non-compliance. Recommendations for audit frequency
ranged from annual reviews for high-risk operations to every 2 to 3
years for compliant operations.
RFI commenters recommended sampling methodologies as a means to
balance verification rigor with practical implementation. Commenters
recommended approaches like stratified random sampling based on
geography, crop type, and farm size, following protocols like the
square root method used by ISCC CORSIA. Risk-based sampling was a
preferred approach, prioritizing farms with higher non-compliance risk
based on factors like operation size, practice complexity, and past
audit performance. Commenters consistently highlighted the need for
sampling approaches tailored to regional and operational differences
while maintaining statistical validity and cost-effectiveness.
RFI Comments Regarding a Chain of Custody Approach
Commenters expressed diverse views on the use of mass balance and
book-and-claim systems for tracing CSA feedstocks through supply
chains. Many commenters supported the use of a book-and-claim system,
arguing that it provides flexibility, reduces compliance costs, and
aligns better with the intended outcomes compared to mass balance or
identity preservation systems. These commenters emphasized the need for
minimal and flexible data collection requirements for farmers,
suggesting the use of digital solutions, farm equipment data, satellite
imagery, and remote sensing to reduce administrative burdens and align
with existing programs like NRCS and ISCC.
On the other hand, some commenters supported the current
traceability definition used in the USDA CSA Pilot Program in the
Treasury and IRS guidance on the section 40B SAF tax credit which
relies on a mass balance approach. They argued that mass balance is an
indispensable tool for incentivizing the development of renewable
natural gas (RNG) production and that programs should be modified to
allow RNG to be used as a feedstock for SAF and renewable diesel
without limitations like region or first use criteria. One commenter
noted that a mass balance approach would make it more difficult to
track actual bushels leaving the field where the CI-lowering practices
were completed; however, another stated that mass balance could reduce
the risk of fraudulent claims regarding production practices and chain
of custody claims.
A few commenters proposed the use of blockchain technology, token-
based systems, or digital ledger platforms for tracing and verifying
CSA attributes and feedstock movements, providing transparency,
auditability, and reduced risk of double-counting or over-allocating
attributes. One commenter described a pilot program using blockchain
for tracking sustainable soybean oil attributes.
In summary, commenters were split between supporting mass balance
and book-and-claim systems for tracing CSA
[[Page 5509]]
feedstocks. While book and claim was recommended for its flexibility
and reduced compliance costs, mass balance was seen as the best
approach for aligning with existing traceability systems.
USDA Response and Request for Additional Public Comment
USDA considered public comments when preparing this interim rule.
USDA considered multiple crops for inclusion in this rule, including
canola and intermediate oilseeds. The crops included in this rule were
selected based on their prevalence of use as a biofuel feedstock, as
well as the availability of data to quantify the impact of CSA
practices on their production. When assessing different chain of
custody approaches, USDA considered both mass balance and book and
claim. While USDA recognizes the potential merits of a book and claim
system, as outlined by commenters, the infrastructure needed to support
a book and claim system does not exist at scale at this time. As
detailed by other commenters, mass balance systems are already in use
for tracking commodity crops and associated environmental attributes
throughout supply chains.
USDA is requesting public comment on this interim rule and welcomes
feedback on any aspect of this rule. In particular, USDA is considering
the inclusion of additional crops and CSA practices in the final rule
and is seeking input on the following questions.
1. USDA is considering the inclusion of spring canola in the final
rule. What data and research exist on the current adoption rates and
GHG impacts of CSA practices, defined in this rule, on spring canola
production?
2. USDA is considering the inclusion of winter canola in the final
rule. What CSA practice(s) are applicable to winter canola? What data
and research exist on the GHG impacts of the practices used in winter
canola production?
3. What records or information could be used to verify that a crop
is winter canola or spring canola?
4. USDA is considering the inclusion of intermediate oilseed crops
in the final rule. What CSA practices are applicable to intermediate
oilseeds? What data and research exist on the GHG impacts of these CSA
practices used in intermediate oilseed production?
5. USDA is considering including ``conservation crop rotation'' as
a CSA practice in the final rule. Conservation crop rotation is the
practice of growing a planned sequence of crops on the same ground over
a period of time. Conservation crop rotation is similar to the cover
crop practice in that living crops provide cover year-round; however,
unlike cover crops, all crops in a conservation crop rotation may be
harvested.
a. What data and research exist on the GHG impacts of conservation
crop rotation?
b. If conservation crop rotation is included as a CSA practice, how
should USDA proportion the GHG impacts when multiple biofuel feedstock
crops are grown in the rotation? For example, if an intermediate
oilseed crop and corn are grown in the rotation, which crop should
receive a GHG reduction for the conservation crop rotation practice?
6. USDA is considering the inclusion of additional Enhanced
Efficiency Fertilizer (EEF) products, such as controlled release
fertilizers, in the final rule. What data and research exist on the GHG
impacts of EEF products when used on the crops defined in this rule?
7. USDA is considering the inclusion of plant biostimulant products
in the final rule. There is no universally accepted definition of plant
biostimulants in the United States. However, the 2018 Farm Bill
directed USDA to submit a report on plant biostimulants to the
President and Congress.\11\ For the purposes of the report, the 2018
Farm Bill considered a plant biostimulant to be ``a substance or micro-
organism that, when applied to seeds, plants, or the rhizosphere,
stimulates natural processes to enhance or benefit nutrient uptake,
nutrient efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, or crop quality and
yield'' and allowed USDA to modify the definition, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See USDA, Report to the President of the United States and
United States Congress on Plant Biostimulants Submitted by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Consultation with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 20, 2019,
December 2019, https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/usda_report_on_plant_biostimulants_12.20.2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. What definition(s) of plant biostimulant products should USDA
consider for the purpose of this rule?
b. Which biostimulant product categories should be considered for
inclusion in the final rule?
c. What data and research exist on the GHG impacts of biostimulant
products?
d. What implementation standards would be necessary to ensure a net
GHG reduction from plant biostimulant products?
e. How can the appropriate use of plant biostimulant products be
verified?
8. USDA is considering including ``reduced nitrogen application
rate'' as a CSA practice in the final rule.
a. What implementation standards would be necessary to ensure a net
GHG reduction from a ``reduced nitrogen application rate'' practice?
b. What records and information would be necessary to verify a
``reduced nitrogen application rate'' practice?
9. USDA recognizes that the practice implementation standards in
this interim rule are different than requirements for some USDA
programs (for example, the cover crop termination methods and timing in
this rule are more specific than practices allowed under crop
insurance). How might the guidelines included in this interim rule
impact farmers' ability to participate in USDA policies and programs
(for example, crop insurance)?
10. What refinements to the USDA FD-CIC tool should USDA consider?
11. Should USDA consider transitioning to a book-and-claim
traceability approach? If so, how could USDA facilitate that
transition?
12. USDA is requesting comment on potential improvements to the
verification, recordkeeping, and reporting standards and whether the
standards appropriately balance verification rigor with burden of
implementation.
13. The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rule estimates
the expected costs associated with this rule which are primarily
attributable to costs to conform with recordkeeping and verification
standards necessary to trace reduced-CI biofuel feedstock through the
biofuel supply chain. These costs are estimated on a per entity basis
(farm producer, first point aggregator, other intermediary entities,
and biofuel refiner). The rule's primary benefits, which are described
qualitatively in the RIA, are due to the efficiencies achieved through
more standardized guidelines for quantification, recordkeeping, and
verification of reduced-CI biofuel feedstocks through the supply chain
this rule provides. USDA requests public comment, including any data or
information, that will lead to a better understanding of this rule's
costs and benefits.
Notice and Comment, Effective Date, and Exemptions
The promulgation of regulations to implement the programs of
Chapter 58 of Title 16 of the U.S. Code, as specified in 16 U.S.C.
3846, and the administration of those programs, are:
To be made as an interim rule effective on publication,
with an opportunity for notice and comment,
Exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter
35), and
[[Page 5510]]
To use the authority in 5 U.S.C. 808 related to
Congressional review and any potential delay in the effective date.
Per Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (5
U.S.C. 801--808), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this rule does not meet the criteria specified in 5
U.S.C. 804(2), so the Congressional Review Act's 60-day effective date
delay requirement for rules does not apply. Even if this rule did meet
the criteria specified in 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the 2018 Farm Bill directs
the Secretary to use the authority in 5 U.S.C. 808 to specify this
rule's effective date. Therefore, this rule is effective on the date of
publication in the Federal Register.
In addition, this rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996. The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory analysis of any rule whenever an agency is
required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to
publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
because OCE is not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any
law to publish a proposed rule for this rule.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14904
Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14904),
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and Executive Order 13563,
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' direct agencies to
assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and,
if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as
significant under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. The analysis of
costs and benefits of this rule is summarized below.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary
Section 2709 of the 2008 Farm Bill (16 U.S.C. 3845) directs the
Secretary to establish technical guidelines that outline science-based
methods to measure the environmental services benefits from
conservation and land management activities 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.
Under these authorities, this rule facilitates recognition of crops
grown with CSA practices in biofuel markets and provides farm producers
with opportunities to market biofuel crops based on their lower net GHG
emissions. It also provides standardized guidelines for entities in the
biofuel supply chain (including first point aggregators, intermediary
entities, and biofuel refiners) to quantify, verify, and trace reduced-
CI feedstocks (that is, those crops grown with CSA practices) through
the biofuel supply chain, from farm to biofuel refiner. The rule
achieves these outcomes by providing quantification, recordkeeping,
chain of custody, and verification standards that:
(1) decrease information asymmetries between biofuel supply chain
entities with respect to the carbon intensity of biofuel feedstocks,
and
(2) reduce transaction costs and increase efficiencies in existing
systems that quantify, trace, and verify emissions benefits associated
with biofuel feedstocks produced with CSA practices.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis estimates the expected costs of this
rule quantitatively and discusses the expected benefits qualitatively.
To estimate the expected costs of the rule, USDA created a model
that quantifies the total per entity annual costs (in hours and
dollars) of quantification, recordkeeping, and verification processes
conforming to the rule standards for each entity type in the biofuel
supply chain including farm producers, first point aggregators,
intermediary entities, and biofuel refiners. Model inputs were derived
from multiple sources, including:
USDA program office data on the hours required of
producers to record and verify information about the adoption of
conservation practices (including CSA practices in this rule) for
existing USDA programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program;
internal USDA data on the time costs (hours) associated
with third party verification of reduced-CI feedstocks;
Bureau of Labor Statistics wage rates applicable to labor
used by each entity type to conduct quantification, recordkeeping or
verification;
latest USDA data on estimated acres and bushels of biofuel
feedstock production with CSA practices; and
annual volume throughput of biofuel feedstocks for each
entity type in the biofuel supply chain calculated using internal USDA
data and data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency.
Aggregate costs of the rule for all entities in the biofuel supply
chain are not estimated in the RIA because they depend on the level of
participation among biofuel supply entities in policies or programs
that adopt the rule's standards. Additional details about the RIA
assumptions, model inputs, methodology, and limitations are described
in the RIA.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
Costs
The costs of this rule include costs associated with collection of
information, the maintenance of such information in records, and the
exchange of these records between entities in the biofuel supply chain.
Under this rule's standards, information collection and the maintenance
and exchange of records occurs between private entities. The federal
government does not collect, maintain, or exchange any information or
records as part of the rule standards. The regulatory impact analysis
calculates the costs of this rule in burden hours and dollars on a per
entity basis (for each entity type including farm producers, first
point aggregators, intermediary entities, and biofuel refiners) and on
a per bushel basis for each entity type.
USDA estimates of the per entity level of effort (LOE) per entity
type (farm producers, first point aggregators, intermediary entities,
and biofuel refiners) are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below.
LOEs for farm producers are estimated to be between 5 to 7 hours
per year and were scaled based on the number of CSA practices adopted
which assumes that additional practices require additional
recordkeeping time. The LOE estimates for producers are inclusive of
quantification of carbon intensity of the crop and recordkeeping time
costs. LOE
[[Page 5511]]
for farm producer audits is estimated separately because not all farm
producers in a given year will be selected for auditing by a third-
party verifier.
LOE for first point aggregators are estimated to be between 48 and
286 hours per entity per year, depending on the size (measured in
throughout of biofuel feedstock) of the entity. The LOE estimates for
First Point Aggregator verification does not include verification fees;
these fees however are included in the per entity costs estimated, as
summarized in Table 2.
LOE for intermediary entities is estimated to be 143 hours per
entity per year. These LOE estimates also do not include any
verification fees (see Table 2).
LOE for biofuel refiners is estimated to be 673 hours per entity
per year. These LOE estimates also do not include any verification fees
(those are included in Table 2).
Table 1--Estimated Level of Effort (LOE) per Entity per Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOE
Category (hours
per year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers (1 CSA practice)................................... 5
Producers (2 CSA practices).................................. 6
Producers (3 CSA practices).................................. 7
Producers (Audits only, if selected)*........................ 8
First Point Aggregators (small)**............................ 48
First Point Aggregators (medium)**........................... 143
First Point Aggregators (large)**............................ 286
Intermediary Entities**...................................... 143
Biofuel Refiners**........................................... 673
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
* Farms selected for audits will have 8 extra hours of LOE. Not all
farms are selected for audits in a given year.
** LOE hours do not include verification fees.
Table 2 summarizes the annual per entity costs (in 2023 dollars)
per entity type. For farm producers, depending on the number of CSA
practices adopted, the annual costs range from $380 to $490, which
include costs associated with quantification of the carbon intensity of
the crop and recordkeeping time costs and a lawyer fee for completing
the farm attestation, with an addition $470 annually per entity in the
event that a farm producer is audited. The verification and
recordkeeping costs for First Point Aggregators is estimated to be
between $3,400 to $19,400 per year per entity, depending on the size of
the aggregator. These costs include any verification fees incurred for
their audits and the audits of the farm producers. The verification and
recordkeeping cost for intermediary entities are estimated to be $9,400
per entity per year. Finally, recordkeeping and verification costs for
biofuel refiners are estimated to be $72,500 per entity per year.
Table 2--Estimated Cost Per Entity Type Per Year
[in 2023 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer (1 practice)........................................ $380
Producer (2 practices)....................................... 440
Producer (3 practices)....................................... 490
Producer Audits.............................................. 470
First Point Aggregators (small).............................. 3,400
First Point Aggregators (medium)............................. 9,900
First Point Aggregators (large).............................. 19,400
Intermediary Entities........................................ 9,400
Biofuel Refiners............................................. 72,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional details about these estimates are described in the RIA.
While this RIA quantifies the paperwork burden associated with the
rule, this rule's information collection requirements and associated
burden hours (that is, level of effort estimates) are exempt from
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 review and approval by the Office of
Information Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, as
indicated by 16 U.S.C. 3846, as noted above.
Benefits
The benefits of this rule include the reduction in transaction
costs and efficiency gains associated with the rule's framework for the
quantification, reporting, and verification of reduced-CI biofuel
feedstocks grown with CSA practices. USDA believes the framework
specified in this rule provides a more standardized set of guidelines
for the quantification, reporting, and verification of reduced-CI
biofuel feedstocks grown with CSA practices. With this more
standardized framework, USDA expects that the transaction costs
incurred by entities for the quantification, reporting, and
verification of reduced-CI feedstocks will be reduced. This
standardization is expected to improve the efficiency of quantifying,
reporting, tracing, and verifying reduced-CI feedstocks. USDA expects
these improvements could facilitate participation in clean fuels
policies and programs, should these policies and programs incorporate a
reduced-CI for crops produced using CSA practices. Increased adoption
of CSA practices in the production of biofuel feedstock crops will also
generate environmental co-benefits such as improved water and air
quality. Because insufficient data is available to quantify these
benefits, the cost benefit analysis only qualitatively discusses them.
Clarity of the Regulation
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Executive
Order 14094 requires Federal agencies to increase and improve public
participation in the regulatory process. The Executive Order's
objective is to improve public trust in the regulatory process by
reducing the risk or appearance of unequal or unfair influence in
regulatory development. Under Executive Order 14904, agencies must, to
the extent they can under law, seek out, assist with, and include
public input in the regulatory process. We welcome comments from public
(State, local, Tribal, and territorial) and private sector regulated
entities; members of underserved communities; consumers; workers and
labor organizations; businesses; and program beneficiaries, among
others. In addition to substantive comments on this rule, we invite
comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. For example:
Are the standards in the rule clearly stated? Are the
scope and intent of the rule clear?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is
not clear?
Is the material logically organized?
Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding
headings make the rule easier to understand?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there
specific sections that are too long or confusing?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
Environmental Review
This rule qualifies as an activity under USDA categorical exclusion
7 CFR 1b.3(a)(6): ``Activities which are advisory and consultative to
other agencies and public and private entities, such as legal
counselling and representation.'' As such, it is excluded from the
requirements of an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4347) and its implementing procedures. The rule contains voluntary
technical guidance in the form of quantification, reporting, and
verification standards that may or may not be adopted in future
policies at various levels of government to incentivize the adoption of
CSA practices for biofuel feedstock
[[Page 5512]]
production, or may or may not be adopted by proponents of potential
future actions that require measurement of GHG emissions. Making
voluntary technical guidance available to a variety of users is
advisory and consultative in nature. The rule also qualifies as
``Educational and informational programs and activities'' under 7 CFR
1b.3(a)(4) because technical guidance is educational and informative in
nature. The rule does not authorize or fund any policy or action. If
the standard is used in any future federal actions, a project specific
analysis may be warranted at that time.
The Office of Energy and Environmental Policy has found that there
are no extraordinary circumstances indicating that further NEPA
analysis would be necessary or informative in promulgating this
technical assistance; nor has it found any extraordinary circumstances
indicating that providing this voluntary technical guidance may have
significant effects on the quality of the human environment,
individually or cumulatively. The Office of Energy and Environmental
Policy has determined, therefore, that the rule does not constitute a
major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. This notice serves as the documentation of this
determination.
Executive Order 12372
Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs,'' requires consultation with State and local officials that
would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance.
The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying
on State and local processes for State and local government
coordination and review of proposed Federal Financial assistance and
direct Federal development. This rule does not provide Federal
financial assistance to State and local governments. Therefore,
consultation is not required.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12988, ``Civil Justice Reform.'' This rule will not preempt State or
local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an
irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may
be brought regarding the provisions of this rule the administrative
appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 and 2100 are to be exhausted.
Executive Order 13132
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132,
``Federalism.'' The policies contained in this rule do not have any
substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the
Federal government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as
required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore,
consultation with the States is not required.
Executive Order 13175
The agency has determined that the rule may have Tribal
implications. Tribal consultation will occur simultaneously with the
public comment period. Notice for Tribal consultation will be sent on
January 17, 2025. Consultation will be held virtually and written
comments will be received until 60 days from the publication of this
interim rule.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments or the
private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement,
including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with
Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more in any 1 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies
to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This
rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA for
State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore,
this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
UMRA.
USDA Non-Discrimination Policy
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights
regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees,
and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are
prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual
orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental
status, income derived from a public assistance program, political
beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in
any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases
apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by
program or incident.
Individuals who require alternative means of communication for
program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape,
American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or
the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and text telephone
(TTY)) or dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay Service (both voice and
text telephone users can initiate this call from any telephone).
Additionally, program information may be made available in languages
other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA
Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and
at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in
the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy
of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form
or letter to USDA by: (1) mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3)
email: [email protected].
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 2100
Alternative fuels, Agriculture, Environmental protection, Fuel
economy, Greenhouse gases, Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons discussed above, and under the authority of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 110-
246)), section 2709, (16 U.S.C. 3845), OCE amends title 7 of the CFR by
adding Chapter XXI consisting of part 2100 to read as follows:
CHAPTER XXI--OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
PART 2100--Technical Guidelines for Climate-Smart Agriculture Crops
Used as Biofuel Feedstocks
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
2100.001 Purpose.
2100.002 Definitions.
[[Page 5513]]
Subpart B--Applicability
2100.010 Entities in the biofuel supply chain.
2100.011 Biofuel feedstock crops.
2100.012 CSA practices to produce CSA crops.
Subpart C--Quantification of Farm-level Crop-specific Carbon Intensity
2100.020 Quantification of CI.
Subpart D--Chain of Custody Standards
2100.030 General recordkeeping and reporting standards.
2100.031 Farm recordkeeping and reporting standards.
2100.032 First point of aggregation and intermediary entity
recordkeeping and reporting standards.
2100.033 Additional recordkeeping standards for entities that
process, sell, or purchase processed product derived from reduced-CI
crops.
2100.034 Mass balance recordkeeping standards.
2100.035 Biofuel refiner recordkeeping standards.
Subpart E--Audits and Verification
2100.040 Third-party audits.
2100.041 Accreditation of third-party verifiers.
Subpart F--Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Practice Standards
2100.050 General.
2100.051 Tillage management.
2100.052 Cover crop management.
2100.053 Nutrient management.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3845-3846.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 2100.001 Purpose.
The purpose of this rule is to establish technical guidelines for
quantifying, reporting, and verifying the greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with agricultural production of biofuel feedstock
commodity crops grown in the United States.
Sec. 2100.002 Definitions.
Accreditation means a formal recognition by an authorized body that
a third-party verifier operates according to a set of standards.
Agricultural expert means persons who are employed by the
Cooperative Extension System or the agricultural departments of
universities, or other persons approved by Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation, whose research or occupation is related to the specific
crop or practice for which such expertise is sought.
Audit means a process for obtaining relevant information about an
entity's practices or processes, recordkeeping, and management and
evaluating it objectively.
Biofuel means a liquid or gaseous fuels and fuel blending
components produced from biomass feedstock.
Biofuel feedstock crop means a crop that can be used as raw
material for biofuel production.
Biofuel Feedstock Report means a report generated by a farm
producer that includes documentation of carbon intensity calculations
and the Farm Producer Attestation.
Biofuel refiner means an entity that refines biomass feedstocks
into a biofuel.
Biomass means any organic material other than oil and natural gas
(or any product thereof), and coal (including lignite) or any product
thereof.
Carbon intensity (CI) means a measure of GHG performance reflecting
the estimated quantity of GHG emissions associated with one unit of
production. For biofuel feedstock crops, carbon intensity is expressed
as grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) per bushel of
produced crop (g CO2-eq/bushel).
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) crop means a crop that is produced
with CSA practices according to subparts A through F of this part.
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices means agricultural
management, practices, systems, and technologies that have been
demonstrated to generally reduce GHG emissions or increase soil carbon
sequestration.
Conventional crop means a crop that is produced without the use of
CSA practices according to this part.
Cover crop means grasses, legumes, and forbs planted for seasonal
vegetative cover, and not intended for harvest, between harvested
production crops in rotation.
Crop interval means the time immediately following harvest or
termination of one cash crop through harvest or termination of the next
cash crop in the rotation, including fallow periods.
Crushing yield means a number representing the amount of oilseed
produced from crushing one bushel of seed oil crop. Crushing yield is
usually expressed in pounds per bushel (lbs/bu).
Farm means a business entity that produces (that is, grows and
harvests) biofuel feedstock crops.
Farm producer means a person who is involved in making decisions
for the farm operation. These decisions may include planting,
harvesting, management, and marketing. The farm producer may be the
owner, a member of the owner's household, a hired manager, a tenant, a
renter, or a sharecropper. If a person rents land to others or has land
worked on shares, they are considered the farm producer only for the
land retained for their own operation.
Farm Producer Attestation means a document generated by the farm
producer, who has operational control, that provides assurance that the
farm producer followed standards in this part. The Farm Producer
Attestation is included in the Biofuel Feedstock Report.
Feedstock means raw material that is converted into fuels and
coproducts during the fuel production process.
Field means a part of a farm that is separated from the balance of
the farm by permanent boundaries, such as fences, permanent waterways,
woodlands, roads, croplines, or other similar features. In addition to
a permanent, contiguous boundary, a field has common land cover and
management.
First point of aggregation means the entity that purchases crops
directly from the farm. Entities serving as the first point of
aggregation distribute, trade, or further process these feedstocks.
Intensive tillage means a tillage operation that involves full
width soil disturbance and multiple operations with implements such as
moldboard, disk, or chisel plow. Intensive tillage does not meet the
standards of reduced till or no-till in this part.
Intermediary entity means any entity in the biofuel supply chain
that falls between the first point of aggregation and the biofuel
refiner. Intermediary entities may include crushers, processors,
storage facilities, or other entities.
Leguminous cover crop means a cover crop that fixes atmospheric
nitrogen and are planted for seasonal vegetative cover, and not
intended for harvest, between harvested production crops in rotation.
Management unit means field, group of fields, or other land units
of the same land use and having similar treatment needs and planned
management.
Mass balance system means a system in which materials or products
with specified characteristics are mixed with materials or products
without some or all of these characteristics, resulting in a claim on a
part of the output, proportional to the input.
No-till means a practice that limits soil disturbance to manage the
amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and plant residue on the
soil surface year-round.
Nutrient management means the practice of managing the rate,
source, placement, and timing of plant nutrients
[[Page 5514]]
and soil amendments to optimize their economic benefits while
minimizing environmental impacts.
Operational control means authority possessed by the person who
runs the farm, making day-to-day management decisions. A person with
operational control could be an owner, hired manager, cash tenant,
share tenant, or a partner. If land is rented or worked on shares, the
tenant or renter has operational control.
Planting green means a system where a cover crop is left in place
and a production crop is planted into the cover crop without prior
termination.
Process means any mechanical operation that transforms the physical
properties of a product. Processing includes extracting oil from seed
oil crops (for example, soybeans).
Reduced-carbon intensity (reduced-CI) crop means a crop that is
produced by a farm that employs CSA practices on some or all of the
fields or management units used for that crop's production. A farm that
does not employ any CSA practices does not have crop that is considered
reduced-CI crop.
Reduced-carbon intensity processed product (Reduced-CI processed
product means a product derived from reduced-CI crops.
Reduced till means the practice of managing the amount,
orientation, and distribution of crop and other plant residue on the
soil surface year-round while limiting soil-disturbing activities used
to grow and harvest crops in systems where the field surface is tilled
prior to planting.
Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR) means a numerical value that
measures the severity and type of soil disturbance caused by tillage
operations. STIR values range from 0 to 200, with higher values
indicating more soil disturbance. The STIR rating applies to the entire
tillage system used in producing a crop. The components of the rating
include tillage type, recommended equipment operating speed,
recommended tillage depth, and surface area disturbed.
Third-party verifier means an accredited person or organization
independent of the verified entity that performs a verification
activity or audit.
Subpart B--Applicability
Sec. 2100.010 Entities in the biofuel supply chain.
The supply chain for feedstock crops used in biofuel production
begins at a farm and ends at a biofuel refiner. Any entity within this
supply chain that produces, processes, or takes ownership of reduced-CI
crop or reduced-CI processed product must meet all applicable standards
of this part. These entities include farms, first points of
aggregation, intermediary entities, and biofuel refiners. If a biofuel
refiner sources directly from a farm, the biofuel refiner is the first
point of aggregation.
Sec. 2100.011 Biofuel feedstock crops.
Crops produced using one or more CSA practices, in accordance with
subpart F of this part, are referred to as CSA crops. Crops produced
without the use of CSA practices are referred to as conventional crops.
A farm producer may produce both CSA crops and conventional crops. CSA
crops and conventional crops can be physically mixed. Crops that are
sold with an associated reduced-CI, as compared to the national average
CI, are referred to as reduced-CI crops. Reduced-CI crops may be
composed of solely CSA crops or a combination of CSA crops and
conventional crops. If CSA crops and conventional crops are produced at
the same farm, the commingled crop must have an associated CI that
reflects the proportion of CSA crops, quantified in accordance with
subpart C of this part. Crops for which a reduced-CI may be quantified
include:
(a) Field corn;
(b) Soybeans; and
(c) Sorghum.
Sec. 2100.012 CSA practices to produce CSA crops.
CSA crops must be produced using one or more CSA practices:
(a) Field corn produced using no-till, reduced till, cover crops,
nitrification inhibitors, split in-season nitrogen application, or no
fall nitrogen application;
(b) Soybeans produced using no-till, reduced till, cover crops, or
nitrification inhibitors; or
(c) Sorghum produced using no-till, reduced till, cover crops,
nitrificiation inhibitors, or split in-season nitrogen application.
Subpart C--Quantification of Farm-level Crop-specific Carbon
Intensity
Sec. 2100.020 Quantification of CI.
Any farm producing and selling reduced-CI crops must calculate a
farm-level CI for each crop type (field corn, soybeans, or sorghum).
The farm-level crop-specific CI represents the carbon emissions
resulting from production of one bushel of that crop. The farm-level
crop-specific CI applies to the year in which the crop was harvested,
and the total amount of a crop harvested in a given year must be
included in the calculation. Once a farm-level CI is calculated for a
specific crop, the total amount of that crop is assigned the farm-level
crop-specific CI and may be sold as reduced-CI crop. To calculate the
farm-level CI for each crop:
(a) Farm producers must calculate the CI for each field or
management unit on which CSA practice(s) were implemented, in
accordance with subpart F of this part, using the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator (FD-CIC). This
step must be repeated for every field or management unit producing CSA
crops. To calculate a field or management unit-level CI in USDA FD-CIC,
farm producers must input data on:
(1) farm location (county and state);
(2) crop type produced;
(3) crop yield;
(4) field or management unit acres;
(5) use of no-till or reduced till;
(6) use of a cover crop;
(7) timing of nitrogen fertilizer application; and
(8) nitrification inhibitor usage.
(b) For any conventional crop, farm producers must input crop and
yield (excluding yield of crop produced using CSA practices) into USDA
FD-CIC. USDA FD-CIC will assign these crops the default national value
CI.
(c) USDA FD-CIC will use the farm producer inputs from paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section to calculate a weighted average, which is
the farm-level crop-specific CI.
(d) Farm producers must repeat paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section for each crop type that is sold as reduced-CI.
Subpart D--Chain of Custody standards
Sec. 2100.030 General recordkeeping and reporting standards.
(a) The total amount of reduced-CI crop and associated CI must be
maintained and tracked from the farm to the biofuel refiner using
records and mass balance accounting.
(b) Crops with different CIs can be physically mixed at any entity
along the supply-chain.
(c) Processed products derived from crops (for example, seed oils)
can be produced using crops with different CIs.
(d) All entities specified in Sec. 2100.010 must maintain required
documentation for 5 years from when reduced-CI crops or processed
products are sold, including documentation of previous verification
activities and audits conducted as required by this part. Documentation
must be readily available to accredited third-party verifiers and
provided upon request during an audit.
[[Page 5515]]
Sec. 2100.031 Farm recordkeeping and reporting standards.
(a) Farm producers must keep records demonstrating implementation
of the CSA practices used in calculation of a CI.
(1) For reduced till or no-till, see Sec. 2100.051(c), titled
Tillage management recordkeeping standards.
(2) For cover crops, see Sec. 2100.052(b), titled Cover crop
recordkeeping standards.
(3) For nutrient management, see Sec. 2100.053(g), titled Nutrient
management recordkeeping standards.
(b) Farm producers must keep records demonstrating all sales of
crop as a reduced-CI crop. These records must indicate the total amount
sold, the purchasing entity, and the date of the transaction.
(c) For each crop that is sold as a reduced-CI crop, farm producers
must prepare and maintain a Biofuel Feedstock Report. Farm producers
must provide the Biofuel Feedstock Report to any entity purchasing
reduced-CI crop. The Biofuel Feedstock Report must:
(1) State the farm name, farm producer name, and farm location
(county and state);
(2) Demonstrate the quantification of the farm-level crop-specific
CI, including:
(i) Documentation of USDA FD-CIC calculation for each field or
management unit (for example, screenshots or printouts from the USDA
FD-CIC excel tool, or similar documentation showing USDA FD-CIC inputs
and outputs including CI for each field or management unit) including a
unique identifier for each field or management unit; and
(ii) Calculation of the farm-level crop-specific CI for each crop;
and
(3) Include a Farm Producer Attestation declaring that the farm
producer:
(i) Has operational control over all fields using CSA practices and
has decision-making authority to manage fields as specified for
practice standards in subpart F of this part;
(ii) Implemented CSA practice(s) that were used in calculation of
the CI according to the implementation standards in subpart F of this
part;
(iii) Calculated the farm-level CI as specified in subpart C of
this part;
(iv) Will retain required records for 5 years and make records
available upon request to accredited third-party verifier;
(v) Will not double sell greenhouse gas benefits resulting from CSA
practice(s) that are used in calculation of the CI (that is, will not
sell the CI information, attributes, or greenhouse gas benefits
associated with CSA crops in more than one market);
(vi) When implementing no-till, will continue no-till for a minimum
of four out of every five years; and
(vii) Did not convert the land used to produce CSA biofuel
feedstock crops into crop production after the date that this rule was
published.
Sec. 2100.032 First point of aggregation and intermediary entity
recordkeeping and reporting standards.
(a) The first point of aggregation and intermediary entities must
establish and maintain a reporting system to ensure a clear link
between reduced-CI crops and documentation at all times. The first
point of aggregation and intermediary entities must have a documented
system in place to prevent the double sale of crops associated with a
CI. At minimum, the entity must keep:
(1) Records of incoming and outgoing reduced-CI crop, including:
(i) the total amount of reduced-CI crop purchased, sold, or both;
(ii) the entity from and to which the crop was purchased, sold, or
both;
(iii) the associated CI; and
(iv) the date of the transaction;
(2) List of and contracts with all suppliers and recipients of
reduced-CI crop; and
(3) List of and contracts with subcontractors and service providers
who have a direct role in data management, accounting, processing, or
other activities that involve the receipt, storage, sale, or tracking
of reduced-CI crop.
(b) In addition to the standards in paragraph (a) of this chapter,
the first point of aggregation and intermediary entities must maintain
some documentation from the previous entity in the supply chain:
(1) The first point of aggregation must maintain the Biofuel
Feedstock Report from each farm supplying reduced-CI crops; and
(2) Intermediary entities must maintain documentation showing that
entities supplying reduced-CI crops or reduced-CI processed products
received accredited third-party verification under this part.
(c) When a first point of aggregation or intermediary entity sells
reduced-CI crops or reduced-CI processed products, the entity must
provide the following documentation to the purchasing entity:
(1) documentation that the selling entity received third-party
verification in accordance with this part;
(2) total amount of reduced-CI crop or reduced-CI processed product
sold; and
(3) CI(s) associated with the amount of reduced-CI crop or reduced-
CI processed product sold.
Sec. 2100.033 Additional recordkeeping standards for entities that
process reduced-CI crops, or sell or purchase reduced-CI processed
product.
(a) Any entity that processes product using reduced-CI crops is
subject to additional recordkeeping standards. Processing includes
extracting oil from seed oil crops (for example, soybeans). Entities
that process reduced-CI crops must:
(1) Keep records on processing of reduced-CI crops, including the
entity's crushing yield, the amount of reduced-CI crop used in
processing, and the corresponding amount of reduced-CI processed
product; and
(2) Demonstrate calculation of the amount of reduced-CI processed
product corresponding to the amount of reduced-CI crop, using the
entity specific crushing yield and the following equation:
reduced CI processed product = crushing yield x reduced CI crop
(b) Any entity that sells or purchases reduced-CI processed product
must keep records demonstrating:
(1) The amount of reduced-CI crop used as an input for reduced-CI
processed product sold or purchased;
(2) The CI associated with reduced-CI crop used as an input for
reduced-CI processed product sold or purchased; and
(3) The amount of reduced-CI processed product sold or purchased.
Sec. 2100.034 Mass balance recordkeeping standards.
(a) First points of aggregation and intermediary entities must
calculate and record the mass balance of incoming and outgoing reduced-
CI crops, such that the incoming and outcoming amounts of reduced-CI
crops with a specific CI are equal over a defined period of time. If an
entity processes, purchases, or sells reduced-CI processed product, the
mass balance accounting must document the amount of reduced-CI crop
that was used in the reduced-CI processed product.
(b) To complete mass balance calculations, entities must define
mass balance time periods such that mass balance time periods are
continuous (that is, no gaps between mass balance periods occur). Each
mass balance time period may not exceed three months. Entities must
document the mass balance time period used for the mass balance
calculation.
(c) Entities must provide documentation of the mass balance
calculation for each time period to the third-party verifier during
audits.
(d) For any given CI, records must indicate that incoming and
outgoing
[[Page 5516]]
crops and processed products are balanced according to the equation:
incoming feedstocki,c,m + beginning stored feedstock i,c,m = outgoing
feedstocki,c,m + ending stored feedstock i,c,m
(1) Where feedstocks (incoming, stored, and outgoing) for entity i
are identified by their carbon intensity, c, and the pre-defined mass
balance accounting time period, m.
(i) Incoming feedstocks include those purchased by entity i in time
period m.
(ii) Outgoing feedstocks must include both sold and discarded or
wasted feedstocks in time period m.
(iii) Stored feedstocks are those maintained by the entity during
time period m and must be accounted for in the mass balance accounting.
(iv) If reduced-CI crops or processed product is remaining at the
end of a mass balance time period m, it is accounted for as ending
stored feedstock for that time period and as beginning stored feedstock
for the subsequent time period.
(2) To ensure that the mass balance accounting for entity i
appropriately accounts for different forms of reduced-CI processed
products (that is, oils), the entity's crushing yield must be used to
convert reduced-CI processed products back to their crop volume or
weight equivalents using the following equation:
processed feedstock crop equivalent = (processed feedstock)/(crushing
yield)
Sec. 2100.035 Biofuel refiner recordkeeping standards.
(a) For reduced-CI crop that a biofuel refiner sources directly
from a farm, the biofuel refiner is acting as a first point of
aggregation and must follow the standards in Sec. 2100.032.
(b) For reduced-CI crops and reduced-CI processed products that are
sourced from a first point of aggregation or intermediary entity, a
biofuel refiner must keep:
(1) Records of incoming reduced-CI crops or reduced-CI processed
products, which, at a minimum this includes records of incoming
reduced-CI crop or reduced-CI processed products, including the total
amount of reduced-CI crop or reduced-CI processed product purchased,
the entity from which the crop or processed product was purchased, the
associated CI, and the date of the transaction; and
(2) Documentation that the entity supplying reduced-CI crop or
reduced-CI processed product has undergone third-party verification by
an accredited third-party verifier and met the standards of this part.
(c) For all reduced-CI crops, a biofuel refiner must establish a
system to track all incoming reduced-CI crops and the associated CI.
Subpart E--Audits and Verification
Sec. 2100.040 Third-party audits.
(a) Audit standards for first point of aggregation. Each audit for
a first point of aggregation must meet the following standards.
(1) First points of aggregation must hire a third-party verifier to
conduct an audit annually;
(2) An audit, conducted by a third-party verifier, must verify that
the first point of aggregation:
(i) Operates a mass balance system as specified in Sec. 2100.034;
and
(ii) Correctly recorded the CI associated with reduced-CI crops
delivered from each farm; and
(3) The first point of aggregation must include supplying farms in
its audit scope. The first point of aggregation and third-party
verifier must adhere to the following standards when selecting the
audit sample.
(i) The first point of aggregation must provide farm producer
information to enable the third-party verifier to select a sample of
supplying farms for verification. Farm producer information must
include the total number of farms supplying reduced-CI crops,
geographic location of each farm, type and amount of crop supplied by
each farm, and CI associated with the crop from each farm;
(ii) The third-party verifier will determine the total number of
farms to be included in the audit sample. The third-party verifier must
determine the minimum size of the farm audit sample by taking the
square root, rounded up to the nearest whole number, of the total
number of farms supplying the first aggregation point with reduced-CI
crops; and
(iii) The third-party verifier must select the individual farms to
be included in the sample for verification. The third-party verifier
should select the sample in a way that is representative of supplying
farms' characteristics including types of supplied reduced-CI crop,
size of farm, geographic location, and risk of non-conformity or fraud.
If an audit occurs at the same first aggregation point in subsequent
years, the sample of farms should avoid selecting those audited in
prior years.
(b) Audit standards for farms. Each audit for a farm must meet the
following standards.
(1) Farms that supply reduced-CI crops to a first point of
aggregation may be selected for an audit by the first point of
aggregation's third-party verifier;
(2) If the farm is selected as part of the audit sample as the
first point of aggregation, the farm may be considered for exemption
from an additional audit when an audit was previously completed for the
applicable year. Farm producers can elect to proactively retain an
accredited third-party verifier to complete an audit at their farm per
the standards of paragraph (b)(3) of this section. To be considered for
exemption from an additional audit, the farm producer must provide
results of the completed audit. It is up to the discretion of the
third-party verifier to determine whether the farm is exempt from an
additional audit or if a full or partial audit is necessary; and
(3) For farms that are audited individually or included in an audit
sample:
(i) The third-party verifier must verify that CSA practices and
practice recordkeeping is in accordance with the standards in subpart F
of this part;
(ii) The third-party verifier must verify that the weighted average
CI for each crop is calculated correctly in accordance with subpart C;
and
(iii) Records from relevant sub-contractors or service providers
must be made available during the farm audit at the request of the
third-party verifier if necessary to audit practice standards.
(c) Audit standards for intermediary entities. Each audit for an
intermediary entity must meet the following standards.
(1) Intermediary entities must hire a third-party verifier to
conduct an audit annually; and
(2) An audit, conducted by a third-party verifier, must verify that
the intermediary entity:
(i) Operates a mass balance system as specified in Sec. 2100.034;
and
(ii) Correctly recorded the CI associated with reduced-CI crops or
reduced-CI processed product delivered to the intermediary entity.
(d) Additional audit standards for entities that process, sell, or
purchase reduced-CI processed product. Each audit for a first point of
aggregation or intermediary entity that processes, sells, or purchases
reduced-CI processed products must meet the following standards.
(1) For entities that process, sell, or purchase reduced-CI
processed products, an audit, conducted by a third-party verifier, must
verify that the entity implemented recordkeeping standards specified in
Sec. 2100.033.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) Additional audit standards for entities that process reduced-CI
crop. Each audit for a first point of aggregation or intermediary
entity that
[[Page 5517]]
processes reduced-CI processed products must meet the following
standards.
(1) For entities that process reduced-CI crop, the third-party
verifier must verify that internal records support the calculation and
application of the entity's crushing yield used to:
(i) Determine the amount of reduced-CI processed product derived
from the amount of inputs; and
(ii) Perform the mass balance calculation.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) Audit standards for biofuel refiners. Each audit for a biofuel
refiner must meet the following standards.
(1) Biofuel refiners must hire a third-party verifier to conduct an
audit annually; and
(2) An audit, conducted by a third-party verifier, must verify that
the biofuel refiner:
(i) Operates a system to correctly record the CI associated with
reduced-CI crop or reduced-CI processed product as specified in Sec.
2100.035(c); and
(ii) Followed the standards in paragraph (a) of this section, if
the biofuel refiner acted as a first point of aggregation for any
reduced-CI crop.
Sec. 2100.041 Accreditation of third-party verifiers.
Third-party verifiers that conduct audits in accordance with this
part must be accredited to ISO 14065: General principles and
requirements for bodies validating and verifying environmental
information by a member of the International Accreditation Forum.
Subpart F--Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Practice Standards
Sec. 2100.050 General.
CSA practices may be implemented individually or in combination on
a field or management unit.
Sec. 2100.051 Tillage management.
(a) Reduced till standards. To qualify as reduced till under this
part, field(s) or management unit(s) must be managed according to the
following standards:
(1) Tillage methods where the entire soil surface is disturbed by
tillage operations such as chisel plowing, field cultivating, tandem
disking, vertical tillage, or ridge tillage are permitted, provided
that the STIR value is no greater than 80. The STIR value must include
all field operations that are performed during the crop interval (that
is, from the time immediately following harvest or termination of one
cash crop through harvest or termination of the next cash crop in the
rotation, including fallow periods). Permitted methods are also
commonly referred to as mulch tillage, conservation tillage, or ridge
till;
(2) Primary inversion tillage implements (for example, moldboard
plow) must not be used;
(3) Residue must not be burned; and
(4) Removing residue from the crop planting row area prior to or as
part of the planting operation is allowed.
(b) No-till standards. To qualify as no-till under this part,
field(s) or management unit(s) must be managed according to the
following standards:
(1) Full-width soil disturbance must not be performed, from the
time immediately following harvest or termination of one cash crop
through harvest or termination of the next cash crop in the rotation,
regardless of the depth of the tillage operation. Strip tillage and
fertilizer injection are permitted, provided that the STIR value is no
greater than 20. The STIR value must include all field operations that
are performed during the crop interval (that is, from the time
immediately following harvest or termination of one cash crop through
harvest or termination of the next cash crop in the rotation, including
fallow periods);
(2) Residue must not be burned; and
(3) Removing residue from directly within the seeding, planting, or
transplanting area prior to or as part of the planting operation is
allowed.
(c) Tillage management recordkeeping standards. Farm producers must
maintain records for 5 years demonstrating required implementation of
the reduced till or no-till practice. Records must contain sufficient
detail to be readily understood and auditable. Records may be of
varying types and origins including, but not limited to, physical
documentation (for example, paper forms, invoices, receipts, seed
tags), digital files (including from farm management software), data
generated by farm equipment (for example, precision agriculture
equipment), remotely sensed data, georeferenced and timestamped
photographs, or data and records used for participation in USDA
programs. Records must demonstrate:
(1) Field(s) or management unit(s) where the practice is
implemented, including location and acreage;
(2) All field operations including tillage and all other operations
(including fertilizing, planting, controlling pests, seeding,
harvesting) that may cause surface disturbance;
(3) Type of field operation including depth and width of
disturbance and average speed of operation;
(4) Equipment used;
(5) Date(s) that each operation occurred; and
(6) Total bushels of the harvested production crop harvested from
field(s) or management unit(s) where the practice was implemented. If
the farm producer uses both reduced till and no-till on different
fields, records must indicate the total bushels produced using each CSA
practice.
(d) Tillage management verification. When auditing the reduced till
or no-till practice, third-party verifiers must review documentation
demonstrating all field operations including the type of operation,
equipment used, and timing of operation. Using these records, third-
party verifiers must verify the correct calculation (or perform the
calculation) of a crop interval STIR value and verify that the value
meets the standards of the reduced till or no-till practice.
Sec. 2100.052 Cover crop management.
(a) Cover crop standards. To qualify for the cover crop practice
under this part, field(s) or management unit(s) must be managed
according to the following standards:
(1) Cover crop species selection, seedbed preparation, seeding
rate(s), seeding date, seeding depth, and seeding method must be
consistent with applicable soil and site conditions;
(2) When a leguminous cover crop is used individually or as part of
a mix, the farm producer must develop a nutrient budget which
demonstrates:
(i) The available nitrogen resulting from the cover crop; and
(ii) An adjustment in total planned nitrogen application to the
harvested production crop following the cover crop;
(3) Cover crops must be seeded in the fall. Cover crop may be
interseeded into an existing or established crop. Cover crop species
and seeding dates should not adversely affect crop yield or interfere
with the maintenance and harvest process;
(4) Cover crops should be seeded as early as possible and
terminated as late as practical (late vegetative stage or later), with
termination timing established to minimize the risk of yield loss and
soil moisture depletion;
(5) Cover crops must be terminated via winter kill or using
herbicide or non-soil disturbing mechanical methods (that is, roller
crimper, mowing) in the spring;
(6) Planting green is permitted;
(7) Cover crop biomass must not be mechanically harvested or
grazed. Residues must remain on the surface following termination and
may not be burned; and
(8) Cover crops may not be fertilized.
(b) Cover crop recordkeeping standards. Farm producers must
[[Page 5518]]
maintain records for 5 years demonstrating required implementation of
the cover crop practice. Records must contain sufficient detail to be
readily understood and auditable. Records may be of varying types and
origins including, but not limited to, physical documentation (for
example, paper forms, invoices, receipts, seed tags), digital files
(including from farm management software), data generated by farm
equipment (for example, precision agriculture equipment), remotely
sensed data, georeferenced and timestamped photographs, or data and
records used for participation in USDA programs. Records must
demonstrate:
(1) Purchase and receipt of cover crop seed in sufficient
quantities to cover the area seeded;
(2) Field(s) or management unit(s) where cover crop practice is
implemented, including location and acreage;
(3) Cover crop seeding date, method, and seeding rate;
(4) Total acreage seeded in cover crop across the operation;
(5) Photographic evidence of cover crop establishment;
(6) Cover crop termination date and method; and
(7) Total bushels of the crop harvested from field(s) or management
unit(s) where the cover crop practice was implemented immediately prior
to seeding or planting the harvested production crop.
(c) Cover crop verification. When auditing the cover crop practice,
third-party verifiers must review documentation demonstrating cover
crop species selection, seeding date, seeding method, seeding rate,
total seeded acreage, termination date, and termination method. Through
an on-site visit, remote video conferencing, remote sensing data, or
georeferenced and timestamped photographs, third-party verifiers must
verify the establishment of cover crops.
Sec. 2100.053 Nutrient management.
(a) Nutrient management standards. To qualify for any nutrient
management practice (nitrification inhibitors, controlled release
fertilizers, no fall application, split in-season application) under
this part, field(s) or management unit(s) must be managed according to
the following standards:
(1) Prior to implementation, the farm producer must develop and
document a planned nutrient budget, yield goal, and applications of at
a minimum, nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (N-P-K) in pounds per
acre. The nutrient budget must account for all known measurable
nutrient sources and removals. Sources of nitrogen may include, but are
not limited to, commercial fertilizers (including starter and in-furrow
starter or pop-up fertilizer), animal manures, legume crops, green
manures, plant or crop residues, compost, organic by-products,
municipal and industrial biosolids, wastewater, organic materials,
estimated plant available soil nutrients, and irrigation water; and
(2) The farm producer must base the nutrient budget on current soil
test results or the professional opinion of an agricultural expert who
is employed by the Cooperative Extension System or the agricultural
departments of universities, or other persons approved by the Federal
Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), whose research or occupation is
related to the specific crop or practice for which such expertise is
sought. Soil test must be no older than 2 years. Tissue testing may be
used for monitoring or adjusting the nutrient management plan in
accordance with the state LGU guidance, or industry practice recognized
by the state LGU.
(b) Nitrification inhibitor standards. To qualify for the practice
under this part, field(s) or management unit(s) must be managed in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and with the following
standards:
(1) The farm producer must apply an inhibitor with all synthetic
nitrogen (synthetic N) applications, including any pre-emergent
applications. Inhibitors must be defined by the Association of American
Plant Food Control Officers (AAPFCO) and be accepted for use by the
State fertilizer control official, or similar authority, with
responsibility for verification of product guarantees, ingredients (by
AAPFCO definition), and label claims.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) No fall application standards. To qualify for the no fall
application practice under this part, field(s) or management unit(s)
must be managed as specified in paragraph (a) of this section and with
the following standards:
(1) The first synthetic N application must occur within 30 days
prior to or at the time of planting; and
(2) The farm producer must not apply synthetic N in the fall on
fallow fields or fields in cover crop. This includes any synthetic N
included in phosphorus fertilizers.
(d) Split in-season application standards. To qualify for the split
in-season application practice under this part, field(s) or management
unit(s) must be managed accordingly in accordance with paragraph (a) of
this section and with the following standards:
(1) Farm Producer must apply at least 75 percent of total crop
synthetic N needs after crop emergence. Post emergent synthetic N may
be reduced based on crop scouting, in-season soil sampling or analysis,
or plant tissue sampling or analysis. Nutrient availability should be
timed to crop uptake.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) Nutrient management recordkeeping standards. Farm producers
must maintain records demonstrating correct implementation of the
nutrient management practice(s) for 5 years. Records must contain
sufficient detail to be readily understood and auditable. Records may
be of varying types and origins, including, but not limited to,
physical documentation (for example, paper forms, invoices, receipts,
seed tags), digital files (including from farm management software),
data generated by farm equipment (for example, precision agriculture
equipment), remotely sensed data, georeferenced and timestamped
photographs, or data and records used for participation in USDA
programs. Records must demonstrate:
(1) Development of a nutrient budget that accounts for realistic
yield goal and all known and measurable sources of N-P-K;
(2) Soil test results, soil test methods, laboratory where soil
test was conducted, and date of the soil test within 2 years of the
development of the nutrient budget. In-season soil samples or tissue
samples results for N analysis should be provided along with methods,
laboratory, and date sampled;
(3) Date(s), method(s), location(s) of all nutrient applications in
pounds per acre for N-P-K;
(4) The source and type of nutrients supplied, including nutrient
content;
(5) Field(s) or management unit(s) where nutrient management
practice(s) is implemented, including location and acreage;
(6) Planting or seeding date for field(s) and management unit(s)
where nutrient management practice(s) is implemented;
(7) Total acreage using each nutrient management practice across
the operation; and
(8) Total bushels of the crop harvested from field(s) or management
unit(s) where each nutrient management practice was implemented.
(f) Nutrient management verification. When auditing nutrient
management practice(s), the third-party verifier must verify
development of a nutrient management budget that accounts for all known
and measurable sources of nutrients (that is, N-P-K). For nitrification
inhibitors, the third-party
[[Page 5519]]
verifier must verify that inhibitors were used with 100 percent of
synthetic N application on all field(s) or management unit(s) where the
practice was implemented. For timing practices (no fall application or
split in-season application), the third-party verifier must verify
application timing through management records.
William Hohenstein,
Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Policy, Office of the
Chief Economist.
[FR Doc. 2025-00975 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-GL-P