Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5497 

section. Any loads hauled in excess of 

that amount during the program year are 

not eligible for assistance. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Livestock Forage Disaster 

Program 

§ 1416.206 [Amended] 

■ 6. In § 1416.206, in paragraph (a), 

remove the words ‘‘30 calendar days’’ 

and add ‘‘March 1’’ in their place. 

Subpart D—Livestock Indemnity 

Program 

■ 7. In § 1416.305: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (b)(1); 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the year 

‘‘2019’’ and add ‘‘2024’’ in its place, and 

remove the words ‘‘60 calendar days’’ 

and add ‘‘March 1’’ in its place; and 

■ c. In paragraph (i)(1), remove the 

words ‘‘60 calendar days’’ and add 

‘‘March 1’’ in their place. 

The revision reads as follows. 

§ 1416.305 Application process. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Provide a notice of loss, by 

livestock unit, to FSA by March 1 after 

the end of the calendar year in which 

the eligible loss occurred. 

* * * * * 

Steven Peterson, 

Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity 

Credit Corporation, and Acting 

Administrator, Farm Service Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01104 Filed 1–16–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–EB–P 

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, 

william.hohenstein@usda.gov. 

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 peerreview 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 cropbased 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 climatesmart 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)), 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5498 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 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, 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5499 

1See https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/generalinformation/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/ 

office-energy-and-environmental-policy/climatechange/greenhouse-gas-inventory-and-assessmentprogram/quantifying-greenhouse-gas-fluxesmethods-entity-scale-inventory. 

• 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. 

USDA will shortly publish USDA FD– 

CIC on its website at https://

www.usda.gov/usda-fdcic for peerreview 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/usdafdcic. 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),’’ ‘‘climatesmart 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,’’ ‘‘notill,’’ ‘‘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 § 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. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5500 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

This rule specifies domestic biofuel 

feedstock crops, which include field 

corn, soybeans, and sorghum, as defined 

in subpart B in § 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 § 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 inseason 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 § 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 CropSpecific 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 notill (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 farmlevel, 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5501 

verifier. Crucially, accredited thirdparty 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5502 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

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 thirdparty 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 predefined 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 nonconformity or fraud. Additionally, thirdparty 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 cropspecific 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5503 

2See 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-MitigationActivities-List.pdf. 

3See 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/NRCSConservationPracticesandGreenhouse

GasMitigation/MitigationSummaries?

%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuest

RedirectFromVizportal=y#3. 

4See USDA NRCS, Soil Intensity Tillage Rating 

STIR, 2020, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2023-01/Soil-Tillage-Intensity-RatingFact-Sheet3-27-2020.pdf. 

5See 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/NRCSConservationPracticesandGreenhouse

GasMitigation/MitigationSummaries?

%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirect

FromVizportal=y#3. 

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 NRCSapproved 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. 

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

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. STIR4 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. 

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

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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5504 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

6See NRCS, Conservation Practices and 

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Information dashboard, 

https://publicdashboards.dl.usda.gov/t/FPAC_PUB/ 

views/NRCSConservationPracticesandGreenhouse

GasMitigation/MitigationSummaries?

%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirect

FromVizportal=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. 

7See 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. 

8See 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. 

9See 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. 

10See 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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 notill 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 practicespecific 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: 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5506 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 doublecropping 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 welldocumented 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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 cobenefits 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 multimodel 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 regionalscale 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 overreliance 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 climatesmart 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 sitespecific 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5508 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

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, wastemanagement 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 threedimensional 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 costeffectiveness 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 noncompliance. 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 noncompliance 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 bookand-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 overallocating 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5509 

11See 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. 

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. 

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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5510 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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

Category 

LOE 

(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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5512 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

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-aprogram-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: program.intake@usda.gov. 

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. 

■ 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. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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 yearround. 

Nutrient management means the 

practice of managing the rate, source, 

placement, and timing of plant nutrients 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5514 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (reducedCI) 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 reducedCI 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 Farmlevel Crop-specific Carbon Intensity 

§ 2100.020 Quantification of CI. 

Any farm producing and selling 

reduced-CI crops must calculate a farmlevel 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 farmlevel 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 

§ 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 § 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. 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5515 

§ 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 

§ 2100.051(c), titled Tillage management 

recordkeeping standards. 

(2) For cover crops, see § 2100.052(b), 

titled Cover crop recordkeeping 

standards. 

(3) For nutrient management, see 

§ 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 cropspecific 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 2100.033 Additional recordkeeping 

standards for entities that process reducedCI 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 reducedCI 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 × 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. 

§ 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 reducedCI 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5516 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

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 reducedCI 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) 

§ 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 § 2100.032. 

(b) For reduced-CI crops and reducedCI 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 reducedCI 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 reducedCI 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 

§ 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 thirdparty verifier, must verify that the first 

point of aggregation: 

(i) Operates a mass balance system as 

specified in § 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 nonconformity 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 subcontractors 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 thirdparty verifier, must verify that the 

intermediary entity: 

(i) Operates a mass balance system as 

specified in § 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 § 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 5517 

processes reduced-CI processed 

products must meet the following 

standards. 

(1) For entities that process reducedCI 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 reducedCI 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 thirdparty verifier to conduct an audit 

annually; and 

(2) An audit, conducted by a thirdparty verifier, must verify that the 

biofuel refiner: 

(i) Operates a system to correctly 

record the CI associated with reducedCI crop or reduced-CI processed product 

as specified in § 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. 

§ 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 

§ 2100.050 General. 

CSA practices may be implemented 

individually or in combination on a 

field or management unit. 

§ 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 notill 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 notill 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, thirdparty 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. 

§ 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
5518 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

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, thirdparty 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. 

§ 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 byproducts, 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 inseason 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 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 11 / Friday, January 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 106 

[CIS No. 2801–25; DHS Docket No. USCIS 

2021–0010] 

RIN 1615–AC68 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services Fee Schedule and Changes to 

Certain Other Immigration Benefit 

Request Requirements; Second 

Correction 

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). 

ACTION: Correcting amendment. 

SUMMARY: On January 31, 2024, the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) published a final rule to adjust 

certain immigration and naturalization 

benefit request fees charged by USCIS, 

add fee exemptions, and make changes 

to certain other immigration benefit 

request requirements. The rule took 

effect on April 1, 2024. In this notice, 

we are correcting a technical error made 

in that rule. 

DATES: This correcting amendment is 

effective January 17, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Cribbs, Deputy Chief Financial 

Officer, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security, 5900 Capital 

Gateway Dr., Camp Springs, MD 20746; 

telephone 240–721–3000 (this is not a 

toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 31, 2024, the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) published 

a final rule in the Federal Register at 89 

FR 6194 changing immigration and 

naturalization benefit request fees 

charged by U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), fee 

exemptions and fee waiver 

requirements, premium processing time 

limits, and intercountry adoption 

processing. DHS published a correction 

to the final rule at 89 FR 20101 on 

March 24, 2024. DHS has identified an 

error in the regulatory text. 

Need for Correction 

As codified by DHS in the final rule, 

8 CFR 106.3(a)(3)(ii)(A) erroneously 

associates the E–2C classification with 

Form I–129CW. Petitioners for E–2C 

classification do not submit Form I– 

129CW. Form I–129CW petitioners may 

request a fee waiver when petitioning 

for a CW–1, CNMI-only transitional 

worker (see 8 CFR 214.2(w)), but the fee 

waiver provision as codified does not 

include a CW–1, CNMI-only transitional 

worker. Therefore, this notice corrects 

that error by removing ‘‘E–2 CNMI 

investor’’ and replacing it with ‘‘CW–1, 

CNMI-only transitional worker’’ in the 

first sentence of 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3)(ii)(A) 

to include the correct nonimmigrant 

classification. DHS is correcting the 

second sentence of 8 CFR 

106.3(a)(3)(ii)(A) by removing ‘‘a E–2 

CNMI investor’’ and replacing it with 

‘‘an employer petitioning for a CW–1, 

CNMI-only transitional worker,’’ to 

clarify that the employer petitioning for 

a CW–1, CNMI-only transitional worker 

must pay any fees in 8 CFR 106.2(c) that 

may apply, not an E–2 CNMI investor. 

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 106 

Citizenship and naturalization, Fees, 

Immigration. 

Correction 

Accordingly, for the reasons set out in 

the preamble, chapter I of title 8 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is corrected 

by making the following correcting 

amendment: 

PART 106—USCIS FEE SCHEDULE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 106 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1254a, 

1254b, 1304, 1356; Pub. L. 107–609; 48 

U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 

(6 U.S.C. 101 note); Pub. L. 115–218, 132 

Stat. 1547; Pub. L. 116–159, 134 Stat. 709. 

■ 2. Section 106.3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) to read as 

follows: 

§ 106.3 Fee waivers and exemptions. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Petition for a CNMI-Only 

Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker 

(Form I–129CW) for a CW–1, CNMI-only 

transitional worker. Waiver of the fee for 

Form I–129CW does not waive the 

requirement for an employer petitioning 

for a CW–1, CNMI-only transitional 

worker to pay any fees in § 106.2(c) that 

may apply. 

* * * * * 

Christina E. McDonald, 

Associate General Counsel for Regulatory 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01386 Filed 1–16–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2024–BT–TP–0009] 

RIN 1904–AF68 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Residential and 

Commercial Clothes Washers and 

Consumer Clothes Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is 

amending the test procedures for 

residential and commercial clothes 

washers and consumer clothes dryers to 

update the test cloth specifications. DOE 

is also reorganizing the test procedures 

for improved readability. DOE is 

conducting this rulemaking to address 

specific issues and to make minor 

corrections to the current test 

procedures. This rulemaking does not 

satisfy the statutory requirement that, at 

least once every 7 years, DOE review the 

test procedures for clothes washers and 

consumer clothes dryers. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

February 18, 2025. The amendments 

will be mandatory for product testing 

starting July 16, 2025. The incorporation 

by reference of certain material listed in 

the rule was approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of July 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, comments, 

and other supporting documents/ 

materials, is available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as those 

containing information that is exempt 

from public disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2024-BT-TP-0009. The docket 

web page contains instructions on how 


KHAMMOND on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES