`[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`