Notice2024-14126
Procedures for Quantification, Reporting, and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With the Production of Domestic Agricultural Commodities Used as Biofuel Feedstocks
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 27, 2024
Issuing agencies
Agriculture Department
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is seeking public input on procedures for the quantification, reporting, and verification of the effect of climate-smart farming practices on the greenhouse gas (GHG) net emissions estimates associated with the production of domestic (i.e., grown in the U.S.) agricultural commodities used as biofuel feedstocks. Agricultural management practices that mitigate GHG emissions and/or sequester soil carbon can be integrated into GHG analysis to reflect the differing GHG outcomes of feedstocks based on their production. However, many clean transportation fuel programs currently do not assign lower carbon intensity (CI) estimates (i.e., lower lifecycle GHG emissions of the fuel per unit of energy) to crops grown with climate-smart practices relative to the same crops grown with conventional farming practices. This Request for Information seeks information on practices that have the potential to mitigate GHG emissions and/or sequester carbon, and quantification, reporting, and verification approaches for the GHG outcomes associated with domestic agricultural commodities used as biofuel feedstocks.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53585-53587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14126]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 124 / Thursday, June 27, 2024 /
Notices
[[Page 53585]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. USDA-2024-0003]
Procedures for Quantification, Reporting, and Verification of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With the Production of Domestic
Agricultural Commodities Used as Biofuel Feedstocks
AGENCY: Office of the Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is seeking public input on
procedures for the quantification, reporting, and verification of the
effect of climate-smart farming practices on the greenhouse gas (GHG)
net emissions estimates associated with the production of domestic
(i.e., grown in the U.S.) agricultural commodities used as biofuel
feedstocks. Agricultural management practices that mitigate GHG
emissions and/or sequester soil carbon can be integrated into GHG
analysis to reflect the differing GHG outcomes of feedstocks based on
their production. However, many clean transportation fuel programs
currently do not assign lower carbon intensity (CI) estimates (i.e.,
lower lifecycle GHG emissions of the fuel per unit of energy) to crops
grown with climate-smart practices relative to the same crops grown
with conventional farming practices. This Request for Information seeks
information on practices that have the potential to mitigate GHG
emissions and/or sequester carbon, and quantification, reporting, and
verification approaches for the GHG outcomes associated with domestic
agricultural commodities used as biofuel feedstocks.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 25, 2024, to be assured of
consideration.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning
this notice by either of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and search for Docket No. USDA-2024-0003. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included
in the record, will be made available to the public, and can be viewed
at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Please be advised that the identity of
the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made
available to the public on the internet at the address provided above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact William Hohenstein, Director
of Office of Energy and Environmental Policy, at (202) 720-0450, or via
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbc8d695d4d8de95d4dedecb95f8e8faf9d2d4ddceded7c8fbcec8dfda95dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2b1afecada1a7ecada7a7b2ec81918380abada4b7a7aeb182b7b1a6a3eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is
considering a rulemaking to establish voluntary standards for
quantifying, reporting, and verifying GHG outcomes for domestic
agricultural commodities used as biofuel feedstocks and grown with
practices that mitigate GHG emissions and/or sequester soil carbon.
These standards would be available for consideration by entities that
operate international, national, or state clean transportation fuel
policies.
In establishing these standards, USDA may utilize its authorities
under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, section 2709 (16
U.S.C. 3845: Environmental services markets). Section 2709 directs the
Secretary to ``establish technical guidelines that outline science-
based methods to measure the environmental services benefits from
conservation and land management activities in order to facilitate the
participation of farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in emerging
environmental services markets.'' It also directs the Secretary to
``give priority to the establishment of guidelines related to farmer,
rancher, and forest landowner participation in carbon markets.'' It
further directs the Secretary to establish verification guidelines,
including ``the role of third-parties in conducting independent
verification of benefits produced for environmental services markets
and other functions.'' Because of the existence of clean transportation
fuel programs, there is an existing environmental service market for
biofuel feedstocks. The potential incorporation of feedstocks produced
with climate-smart practices into these programs represents an emerging
environmental service market opportunity for farmers.
Feedstock production contributes a significant percentage of the
GHG emissions associated with crop-based biofuel production. However,
clean transportation fuel programs typically base their feedstock
production emissions estimates on average farming practices which
include a range of both conventional and climate-smart farming
practices. There is an opportunity to improve the empirical basis and
verifiability of the effects of climate-smart farming practices on net
GHG emissions, and to quantify net GHG emissions reductions more
specifically to only those feedstocks grown with such practices.
Standards that differentiate between crops grown with and without
climate-smart farming practices could incentivize further adoption of
climate-smart farming and corresponding reductions in GHG emissions.
A greater adoption of climate-smart farming practices could lower
overall GHG emissions associated with biofuel production and provide
other environmental benefits, such as improved water quality and soil
health. Accurate quantification and verification are important to
ensure that net GHG emissions reductions are real. Improving the
ability to accurately quantify and verify the GHG outcomes of climate-
smart farming practices can also provide additional benefits, including
improved credibility and confidence in a variety of climate-smart
markets.
The information received in response to this notice will inform a
potential USDA rulemaking on these topics as well as future
improvements to quantification methodologies.
Questions for Commenters
Qualifying Practices
(1) Which domestic biofuel feedstocks should USDA consider
including in its analysis to quantify the GHG emissions associated with
climate smart farming practices? USDA is considering corn, soybeans,
sorghum, and spring canola as these are the dominant biofuel feedstock
crops in the United States. USDA is also considering winter oilseed
crops
[[Page 53586]]
(brassica carinata, camelina, pennycress, and winter canola). Are there
other potential biofuel feedstocks, including crops, crop residues and
biomaterials, that USDA should analyze?
(2) Which farming practices should USDA consider including in its
analysis to quantify the GHG emissions outcomes for biofuel feedstocks?
Practices that can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with
specific feedstocks and/or increase soil carbon sequestration may
include, but are not limited to: conservation tillage, no-till,
planting of cover crops, incorporation of buffer strips, and nitrogen
management (e.g., applying fertilizer in the right source, rate, place
and time, including using enhanced efficiency fertilizers, biological
fertilizers or amendments, or manure). Should practices (and crops)
that reduce water consumption be considered, taking into account the
energy needed to transport water for irrigation? Should the farming
practices under consideration vary by feedstock and/or by location? If
so, how and why?
(3) For practices identified in question 2, how should these
practices be defined? What parameters should USDA specify so that the
GHG outcomes (as opposed to other environmental and economic benefits)
resulting from the practices can be quantified, reported, and verified?
(4) For practices identified in question 2, to what extent do
variations in practice implementation affect the overall GHG benefits
of the practice (e.g., the date at which cover crops are harvested or
terminated)? What implementation strategies maximize the GHG benefits
of these climate-smart agriculture practices?
Quantification
(5) What scientific data, information, and analysis should USDA
consider when quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions outcomes of
climate-smart agricultural practices and conventional farming
practices? What additional analysis should USDA prioritize to improve
the accuracy and reliability of the GHG estimates? How should USDA
account for uncertainty in scientific data? How should USDA analysis be
updated over time?
(6) Given the degree of geographic variability associated with each
practice, on what geographic scale should USDA quantify the GHG net
emissions of each practice (e.g., farm-level, county-level, state,
regional, national)? What are the pros and cons of each scale? How
should differences in local and regional conditions be addressed?
(7) How should USDA estimate the GHG emissions and soil carbon
fluxes of baseline crop production?
(8) Where models can be used to quantify changes in greenhouse gas
emissions and sinks associated with climate smart agricultural
practices, which model(s) are most appropriate for quantifying the
greenhouse gas effects of these practices? What are the tradeoffs of
different modeling approaches for accurately representing carbon,
methane, and nitrous oxide fluxes under climate smart agricultural
practices?
(9) How should net greenhouse gas emissions, including soil carbon
sequestration, be attributed among crops produced in a rotation, for
example crops grown in rotation with one or multiple cover crops?
(10) To what extent do interactions between practices either
enhance or reduce the GHG emissions outcomes of each practice? Where
multiple practices are implemented in combination, should the impacts
of these practices be measured individually or collectively?
(11) How should the GHG emissions of nutrient management practices
(e.g., applying fertilizer according to the ``4Rs'' of nutrient
management--right place, right source, right time, and right rate;
variable rate technology; enhanced efficiency fertilizer application;
manure application) be quantified? What empirical data exist to inform
the quantification? What factors should USDA consider when quantifying
the GHG emissions outcomes of these practices?
Soil Carbon
(12) How should the GHG outcomes of soil management practices that
can increase carbon sequestration or reduce carbon dioxide emissions
(e.g., no-till, cover crops) be quantified? What empirical data exist
to inform the quantification? Over what time scale should practices
that sequester soil carbon be implemented to achieve measurable and
durable GHG benefits?
(13) For practices that can increase soil carbon sequestration or
reduce carbon dioxide emissions, how should the duration and any
interruptions of practice (e.g., length of time practice is continued,
whether the practice is put in place continually or with interruptions)
be considered when assessing the effects on soil carbon sequestration?
(14) How should the baseline rates of change in soil carbon and
uncertainty around the greenhouse gas benefits of these practices be
characterized? Does this uncertainty and variability depend on the type
or longevity/permanence of the practice?
Verification and Recordkeeping
(15) What records, documentation, and data are necessary to provide
sufficient evidence to verify practice adoption and maintenance? What
records are typically maintained, why, and by whom? Where possible,
please be specific to recommended practices (e.g., refer to practices
identified in question two).
(16) How can market participants leverage remote sensing and/or
other emergent technologies as an option to verify practice adoption
and maintenance?
(17) Are there existing reporting structures that can potentially
be leveraged?
(18) Should on-site audits be used to verify practice adoption and
maintenance and if so, to what extent, and on what frequency?
(19) If only a sample of farm/fields are audited on-site, what
sampling methodology should be used to determine the sample of farms
selected for an on-site audit, and how can the sampling methodology
ensure that selected farms are representative across geographies,
crops, and other factors?
(20) What system(s) should be used to trace feedstocks throughout
biofuel feedstock supply chains (e.g., mass balance, book and claim,
identity preservation, geolocation of fields where practices are
adopted)? What data do these tracking systems need to collect? What are
the pros and cons of these traceability systems? How should this
information be verified?
Verifier Qualifications/Accreditation Requirements
(21) How could USDA best utilize independent third-parties (i.e.,
unrelated party certifiers) to bolster verification of practice
adoption and maintenance and/or supply chain traceability? What
standards or processes should be in place to prevent conflicts of
interest between verifiers and the entities they oversee?
(22) What qualifications should independent third-party verifiers
of practice adoption and/or supply chain traceability possess?
(23) What independent third-party verification systems currently
exist that may be relevant for use in the context of verifying climate-
smart agricultural practices (as identified under questions 1 and 2)
and/or biofuel supply chains?
(24) How should oversight of verifiers be performed? What
procedures should be in place if an independent third-party verifier
fails to conform to verification and audit requirements, or otherwise
conducts verification inappropriately?
[[Page 53587]]
(25) What procedures should be in place to prevent potential
inaccurate or fraudulent claims regarding feedstock production
practices or chain of custody claims, how should monitoring occur to
identify such inaccurate claims, and what should the remedy be when
such inaccurate claims are discovered?
(26) What preemptive measures are appropriate to guard program
integrity against both potential intentional fraud and inadvertent
reversal or nonaccrual of credited GHG emissions benefits?
William Hohenstein,
Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-14126 Filed 6-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-GL-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 27, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.