[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 159 (Thursday, August 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47590-47612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6920]
[[Page 47589]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR Part 2902
Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 47590]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
7 CFR Part 2902
RIN 0503-AA31
Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement
AGENCY: Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to
amend 7 CFR part 2902, Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for
Federal Procurement, to add 10 sections to designate the following 10
items within which biobased products would be afforded Federal
procurement preference, as provided for under section 9002 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002: 2-Cycle engine oils; lip
care products; biodegradable films; stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids; biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners; greases; dust
suppressants; carpets; and carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA also is
proposing minimum biobased content for each of these items. Once USDA
designates an item, procuring agencies are required generally to
purchase biobased products within these designated items where the
purchase price of the procurement item exceeds $10,000 or where the
quantity of such items or the functionally equivalent items purchased
over the preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or more.
DATES: USDA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until
October 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods. All
submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory
Information Number (RIN). The RIN for this rulemaking is 0503-AA31.
Also, please identify submittals as pertaining to the ``Proposed
Designation of Items.''
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected]. Include RIN number 0503-AA31
and ``Proposed Designation of Items'' on the subject line. Please
include your name and address in your message.
Mail/commercial/hand delivery: Mail or deliver your
comments to: Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the Chief Economist, Office
of Energy Policy and New Uses, Room 4059, South Building, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., MS-3815, Washington, DC 20250-3815.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
for communication for regulatory information (braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-
2600 (voice) and (202) 401-4133 (TDD).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the
Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Room 4059, South
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., MS-3815, Washington, DC 20250-
3815; e-mail: [email protected]; phone (202) 401-0461. Information
regarding the Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program
is available on the Internet at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
B. Items Proposed for Designation
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
D. Effective Date for Procurement Preference and Incorporation
into Specifications
V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information on These USDA-designated
Items?
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
I. Authority
The designation of these items is proposed under the authority of
section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(FSRIA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this document as ``section
9002'').
II. Background
Section 9002 of FSRIA, as amended by section 943 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 (Energy Policy Act), provides for
the preferred procurement of biobased products by procuring agencies.
Section 943 of the Energy Policy Act amended the definitions section of
FSRIA, 7 U.S.C. 8101, by adding a definition of ``procuring agency''
that includes both Federal agencies and ``any person contracting with
any Federal agency with respect to work performed under that
contract.'' The amendment also made Federal contractors, as well as
Federal agencies, expressly subject to the procurement preference
provisions of section 9002 of FSRIA. However, because this program
requires agencies to incorporate the preference for biobased products
into procurement specifications, the statutory amendment makes no
substantive change to the program. USDA amended the Guidelines to
incorporate the new definition of ``procuring agency'' through an
interim final rule.
Procuring agencies must procure biobased products within each
designated item unless they determine that products within a designated
item are not reasonably available within a reasonable period of time,
fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring
agencies, or are available only at an unreasonable price. As stated in
the Guidelines, biobased products that are merely incidental to Federal
funding are excluded from the preferred procurement program. In
implementing the preferred procurement program for biobased products,
procuring agencies should follow their procurement rules and Office of
Federal Procurement Policy guidance on buying non-biobased products
when biobased products exist and should document exceptions taken for
price, performance, and availability.
USDA recognizes that the performance needs for a given application
are important criteria in making procurement decisions. USDA is not
requiring procuring agencies to limit their choices to biobased
products that fall under the items for designation in this proposed
rule. Rather, the effect of the designation of the items is to require
procuring agencies to determine their performance needs, determine
whether there are qualified biobased products that fall under the
designated items that meet the reasonable performance standards for
those needs, and purchase such qualified biobased products to the
maximum extent practicable as required by section 9002.
Section 9002 also requires USDA to provide information to procuring
agencies on the availability, relative price, performance, and
environmental and public health benefits of such items
[[Page 47591]]
and, under section 9002(e)(1)(C), to recommend where appropriate the
minimum level of biobased content to be contained in the procured
products.
Overlap with EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines program for
recovered content products. Some of the biobased items designated for
preferred procurement may overlap with products designated under the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Comprehensive Procurement
Guidelines program for recovered content products. Where that occurs,
an EPA-designated recovered content product (also known as ``recycled
content products'' or ``EPA-designated products'') has priority in
Federal procurement over the qualifying biobased product. In situations
where USDA believes there may be an overlap, it plans to ask
manufacturers of qualifying biobased products to provide additional
product and performance information including the various suggested
uses of their product and the performance standards against which a
particular product has been tested. In addition, depending on the type
of biobased product, manufacturers may also be asked to provide other
types of information, such as whether the product contains petroleum-,
coal-, or natural gas-based components and whether the product contains
recovered materials. Federal agencies may also ask manufacturers for
information on a product's biobased content and its profile against
environmental and human health measures and life cycle costs (the
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) analysis
or ASTM International (ASTM) Standard D7075 for evaluating and
reporting on environmental performance of biobased products). Such
information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether the
biobased products in question are, or are not, the same products for
the same uses as the recovered content products and will be available
on USDA's Web site with its catalog of qualifying biobased products.
Where a biobased item is used for the same purposes and to meet the
same requirements as an EPA-designated recovered content product, the
Federal agency must purchase the recovered content product. For
example, if a biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used as a fluid in
hydraulic systems and ``lubricating oils containing re-refined oil''
has already been designated by EPA for that purpose, then the Federal
agency must purchase the EPA-designated recovered content product,
``lubricating oils containing re-refined oil.'' If, on the other hand,
that biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used to address certain
environmental or health requirements that the EPA-designated recovered
content product would not meet, then the biobased product should be
given preference, subject to cost, availability, and performance.
Federal Government Purchase of ``Green'' Products. Three components
of the Federal government's green purchasing program are the Biobased
Products Preferred Purchasing Program, the Environmental Protection
Agency's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for products containing
recovered materials, and the Environmentally Preferable Products
Program. The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) and
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) encourage agencies to
implement these components comprehensively when purchasing products and
services.
In the case of cleaning products, procuring agencies should note
that not all biobased products are ``environmentally preferable.''
Unless the cleaning products contain no or reduced levels of metals and
toxic and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life,
the environment, or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable
cleaning products, many Federal agencies specify that products must
meet Green Seal standards for institutional cleaning products or that
products have been reformulated in accordance with recommendations from
the U.S. EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program. Both the Green
Seal standards and the DfE program identify chemicals of concern in
cleaning products. These include zinc and other metals, formaldehyde,
ammonia, alkylphenol ethoxylates, ethylene glycol, and volatile organic
compounds. In addition, both require that cleaning products have
neutral or less caustic pH.
On the other hand, some biobased products may be better for the
environment than some products that meet Green Seal standards for
institutional cleaning products or that have been reformulated in
accordance with the EPA's DfE program. To fully compare products, one
must look at the ``cradle-to-grave'' impacts of the manufacture, use,
and disposal of products. Biobased products that will be available for
preferred procurement under this program have been assessed as to their
``cradle-to-grave'' impacts.
One consideration of a product's impact on the environment is
whether (and to what degree) it introduces new fossil carbon into the
atmosphere. Qualifying biobased products offer the user the opportunity
to manage the carbon cycle and limit the introduction of new fossil
carbon into the atmosphere, whereas non-biobased products derived from
fossil fuels add new fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
Manufacturers of qualifying biobased products under the Federal
Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program (FB4P) will be able to
provide, at the request of Federal agencies, factual information on
environmental and human health effects of their products, including the
results of the BEES analysis, which examines 11 different environmental
parameters, including human health, or the comparable ASTM D7505.
Therefore, USDA encourages Federal procurement agencies to examine all
available information on the environmental and human health effects of
cleaning products when making their purchasing decisions.
Green Building Council. More than a dozen Federal agencies use the
U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Green Building Rating Systems for new construction,
building renovation, and building operation and maintenance. The
systems provide criteria for implementing sustainable design principles
in building design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Points
are assigned to each criterion, and building projects can be certified
as ``certified,'' ``silver,'' ``gold,'' or ``platinum,'' depending on
the number of points for which the project qualifies. LEED for New
Construction and Major Renovations (LEED-NC) includes a ``Materials &
Resources'' criterion, with one point allocated for the use of rapidly
renewable materials. Thus, the use of biobased construction products
can help agencies obtain LEED certification for their building
construction projects.
Interagency Council. USDA has created, and is chairing, an
``interagency council,'' with membership selected from among Federal
stakeholders to the FB4P. To augment its own research, USDA consults
with this council in identifying the order of item designation,
manufacturers producing and marketing products that fall within an item
proposed for designation, performance standards used by Federal
agencies evaluating products to be procured, and warranty information
used by manufacturers of end user equipment and other products with
regard to biobased products.
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rulemaking
Today, USDA is proposing to designate the following 10 items for
[[Page 47592]]
preferred procurement: 2-Cycle engine oils; lip care products;
biodegradable films; stationary equipment hydraulic fluids;
biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners; greases; dust suppressants;
carpets; and carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA is also proposing
minimum biobased content for each of these items (see Section IV.C).
Lastly, USDA is proposing a date by which Federal agencies must
incorporate designated items into their procurement specifications (see
Section IV.D).
In today's proposed rulemaking, USDA is providing information on
its findings as to the availability, economic and technical
feasibility, environmental and public health benefits, and life cycle
costs for each of the 10 designated items. Information on the
availability, relative price, performance, and environmental and public
health benefits of individual products within each of these 10 items is
not presented in this notice. Further, USDA has reached an agreement
with manufacturers not to publish their names in the Federal Register
when designating items. This agreement was reached to encourage
manufacturers to submit products for testing to support the designation
of an item. Once an item has been designated, USDA will encourage the
manufacturers of products within the designated item to voluntarily
post their names and other contact information on the USDA FB4P Web
site.
Warranties. Some of the items being proposed for designation today
may affect maintenance warranties. As time and resources allow, USDA
will work with manufacturers on addressing any effect the use of
biobased products may have on maintenance warranties. At this time,
however, USDA does not have information available as to whether or not
the manufacturers will state that the use of these products will void
maintenance warranties. USDA encourages manufacturers of biobased
products to work with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure
that biobased products will not void maintenance warranties when used.
USDA is willing to assist manufacturers of the biobased products, if
they find that existing performance standards for maintenance
warranties are not relevant or appropriate for biobased products, in
working with the appropriate OEMs to develop tests that are relevant
and appropriate for the end uses in which biobased products are
intended. If despite these efforts there is insufficient information
regarding the use of a biobased product and its effect on maintenance
warranties, USDA notes that the procurement agent would not be required
to buy such a product. As information is available on warranties, USDA
will make such information available on its FB4P Web site.
Additional Information. USDA is working with manufacturers and
vendors to post all relevant product and manufacturer contact
information on the FB4P Web site before a procuring agency asks for it,
in order to make the preferred program more efficient. Steps USDA has
implemented, or will implement, include: Making direct contact with
submitting companies through e-mail and phone conversations to
encourage completion of product listing; coordinating outreach efforts
with intermediate material producers to encourage participation of
their customer base; conducting targeted outreach with industry and
commodity groups to educate stakeholders on the importance of providing
complete product information; participating in industry conferences and
meetings to educate companies on program benefits and requirements; and
communicating the potential for expanded markets beyond the Federal
government, to include State and local governments, as well as the
general public markets. Section V provides instructions to agencies on
how to obtain this information on products within these items through
the following Web site: http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
Comments. USDA invites comment on the proposed designation of these
10 items, including the definition, proposed minimum biobased content,
and any of the relevant analyses performed during the selection of
these items. In addition, USDA invites comments and information in the
following areas:
1. Two of the items being proposed for designation (stationary
equipment hydraulic fluids and carpets) may overlap with products
designated under EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for
products containing recovered material. To help procuring agencies in
making their purchasing decisions between biobased products within the
proposed designated items that overlap with products containing
recovered material, USDA is requesting from manufacturers and users
product specific information on unique performance attributes,
environmental and human health effects, disposal costs, and other
attributes that would distinguish biobased products from products
containing recovered material as well as non-biobased products. USDA
will post this information on the FB4P Web site.
2. Biobased carpet can be composed of a biobased face or a biobased
backing or both (i.e., both the face and backing are biobased). USDA is
proposing in today's notice that the minimum biobased content for
carpet be based on the total product; that is, on both the carpet's
face and backing. USDA is seeking comment on whether separate minimum
biobased contents should be set for the face and for the backing.
Please provide detailed rationale and information to support your
comments.
3. USDA is proposing to designate dust suppressants as an item for
preferred procurement. The products intended to be covered are those
designed for use in outdoor environments. However, the same products,
or products with very similar formulations, may also be used in indoor
environments, such as indoor arenas, that simulate outdoor conditions.
For example, an indoor arena might provide parking on a dirt floor,
such as would be found in outside parking. USDA is proposing that dust
suppressant products used for similar situations that take place within
an indoor environment be included in this item. USDA is interested in
your comments on whether this item should be strictly limited to
outdoor environments. Please be sure to provide your rationale for your
comments.
4. We have attempted to identify relevant and appropriate
performance standards and other relevant measures of performance for
each of the proposed items. If you know of other such standards or
relevant measures of performance for the proposed items, USDA requests
that you submit information identifying such standards and measures,
including their name (and other identifying information as necessary),
identifying who is using the standard/measure, and describing the
circumstances under which the product is being used. For example, in
today's proposed rulemaking, a Green Seal standard (GS-37) has been
identified for glass cleaners. USDA is interested in learning if other
equivalent standards for glass cleaners exist and where they are being
used.
5. As proposed, biodegradable films do not include films used for
agricultural purposes (such as films that would be used to cover
fields) and durable films. Durable films will be proposed as a separate
item for preferred procurement. USDA, however, is interested in
receiving comment on whether there should be any subcategories within
biodegradable films (including any biodegradable films that might be
considered agricultural films) and what they might be. Please be sure
to provide rationale and supporting information with your comments.
[[Page 47593]]
6. Many biobased products within the items being proposed for
designation will have positive environmental and human health
attributes. USDA is seeking comments on such attributes in order to
provide additional information on the FB4P Web site. This information
will then be available to Federal procuring agencies and will assist
them in making ``best value'' purchase decisions. When possible, please
provide appropriate documentation to support the environmental and
human health attributes you describe.
To assist you in developing your comments, the background
information used in proposing these items for designation can be found
on the FB4P Web site. All comments should be submitted as directed in
the ADDRESSES section above.
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
In order to designate items (generic groupings of specific products
such as crankcase oils or products that contain qualifying biobased
fibers) for preferred procurement, section 9002 requires USDA to
consider: (1) The availability of items; and (2) the economic and
technological feasibility of using the items, including the life cycle
costs of the items.
In considering an item's availability, USDA uses several sources of
information. USDA performs Internet searches, contacts trade
associations (such as the Biobased Manufacturers Association) and
commodity groups, searches the Thomas Register (a database, used as a
resource for finding companies and products manufactured in North
America, containing over 173,000 entries), and contacts individual
manufacturers and vendors to identify those manufacturers and vendors
with biobased products within items being considered for designation.
USDA uses the results of these same searches to determine if an item is
generally available.
In considering an item's economic and technological feasibility,
USDA examines evidence pointing to the general commercial use of an
item and its cost and performance characteristics. This information is
obtained from the sources used to assess an item's availability.
Commercial use, in turn, is evidenced by any manufacturer and vendor
information on the availability, relative prices, and performance of
their products as well as by evidence of an item being purchased by a
procuring agency or other entity, where available. In sum, USDA
considers an item economically and technologically feasible for
purposes of designation if products within that item are being offered
and used in the marketplace.
In considering the life cycle costs of items proposed for
designation, USDA uses the BEES analytical tool to test individual
products within each proposed item. (Detailed information on this
analytical tool can be found on the Web site http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.html.) The BEES analytical tool measures the
environmental performance and the economic performance of a product.
Environmental performance is measured in the BEES analytical tool
using the internationally-standardized and science-based life cycle
assessment approach specified in the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14000 standards. The BEES environmental
performance analysis includes human health as one of its components.
All stages in the life of a product are analyzed: Raw material
production; manufacture; transportation; installation; use; and
recycling and waste management. The time period over which
environmental performance is measured begins with raw material
production and ends with disposal (waste management). The BEES
environmental performance analysis also addresses products made from
biobased feedstocks.
Economic performance in the BEES analysis is measured using the
ASTM standard life cycle cost method (ASTM E917), which covers the
costs of initial investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and
repair, and disposal. The time frame for economic performance extends
from the purchase of the product to final disposal.
USDA then utilizes the BEES results of individual products within a
designated item in its consideration of the life cycle costs at the
item level. There is a single unit of comparison associated with each
designated item. The basis for the unit of comparison is the
``functional unit,'' defined so that the products compared are true
substitutes for one another. If significant differences have been
identified in the useful lives of alternative products within a
designated item (e.g., if one product lasts twice as long as another),
the functional unit will include reference to a time dimension to
account for the frequency of product replacement. The functional unit
also will account for products used in different amounts for equivalent
service. For example, one surface coating product may be
environmentally and economically preferable to another on a pound-for-
pound basis, but may require twice the mass to cover one square foot of
surface, and last half as long, as the other product. To account for
these performance differences, the functional unit for the surface
coating item could be ``one square foot of application for 20 years''
instead of ``one pound of surface coating product.'' The functional
unit provides the critical reference point to which all BEES results
for products within an item are scaled. Because functional units vary
from item to item, performance comparisons are valid only among
products within a designated item.
The complete results of the BEES analysis, extrapolated to the item
level, for each item proposed for designation in today's proposed
rulemaking can be found at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
As discussed above, the BEES analysis includes information on the
environmental performance, human health impacts, and economic
performance. In addition, ASTM D7505, which manufacturers may use in
lieu of the BEES analytical tool, provides similar information. USDA is
working with manufacturers and vendors to post this information on the
FB4P Web site before a procuring agency asks for it, in order to make
the preferred procurement program more efficient. As discussed earlier,
USDA has also implemented, or will implement, several other steps
intended to educate the manufacturers and other stakeholders on the
benefits of this program and the need to post this information,
including manufacturer contact information, on the FB4P Web site to
make it available to procurement officials. Additional information on
specific products within the items proposed for designation may also be
obtained directly from the manufacturers of the products.
USDA recognizes that information related to the functional
performance of biobased products is a primary factor in making the
decision to purchase these products. USDA is gathering from
manufacturers of biobased products being considered for designation
information on industry standard test methods that they are using to
evaluate the functional performance of their products. Additional
standards are also being identified during meetings of the Interagency
Council and during the review process for each proposed rule. We have
listed under the detailed discussion of each item proposed for
designation (presented in Section IV.B) the functional performance test
methods identified during the development of this Federal Register
notice for these 10 items. While this process identifies
[[Page 47594]]
many of the relevant standards, USDA recognizes that the performance
test methods identified herein do not represent all of the methods that
may be applicable for a designated item or for any individual product
within the designated item. As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is
requesting identification of other relevant performance standards and
measures of performance. As the program becomes fully implemented,
these and other additional relevant performance standards will be
available on the FB4P Web site.
In gathering information relevant to the analyses discussed above,
USDA has made extensive efforts to contact and request information and
product samples from representatives of all known manufacturers of
products within the items proposed for designation. However, because
the submission of information is on a strictly voluntary basis, USDA
was able to obtain information and samples only from those
manufacturers who were willing voluntarily to invest the resources
required to gather and submit the information and samples. USDA used
the samples to test for biobased content and the information to conduct
the BEES analyses. The data presented are all the data that were
submitted in response to USDA requests for information from all known
manufacturers of the products within the 10 items proposed for
designation. While USDA would prefer to have complete data on the full
range of products within each item, the data that were submitted are
sufficient to support designation of the items in today's proposed
rulemaking.
To propose an item for designation, USDA must have sufficient
information on a sufficient number of products within an item to be
able to assess its availability and its economic and technological
feasibility, including its life cycle costs. For some items, there may
be numerous products available. For other items, there may be very few
products currently available. Given the infancy of the market for some
items, it is not unexpected that even single-product items will be
identified. Further, given that the intent of section 9002 is largely
to stimulate the production of new biobased products and to energize
emerging markets for those products, USDA has determined that the
identification of two or more biobased products within an item, or even
a single product with two or more suppliers, is sufficient to consider
the designation of that item. Similarly, the documented availability,
benefits, and life cycle costs of even a very small percentage of all
products that may exist within an item are also considered sufficient
to support designation.
B. Items Proposed for Designation
USDA uses a model (as summarized below) to identify and prioritize
items for designation. Through this model, USDA has identified over 100
items for potential designation under the preferred procurement
program. A list of these items and information on the model can be
accessed on the USDA biobased program Web site at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
In general, items are developed and prioritized for designation by
evaluating them against program criteria established by USDA and by
gathering information from other government agencies, private industry
groups, and independent manufacturers. These evaluations begin by
asking the following questions about the products within an item:
Are they cost competitive with non-biobased products?
Do they meet industry performance standards?
Are they readily available on the commercial market?
In addition to these primary concerns, USDA then considers the
following points:
Are there manufacturers interested in providing the
necessary test information on products within a particular item?
Are there a number of manufacturers producing biobased
products in this item?
Are there products available in this item?
What level of difficulty is expected when designating this
item?
Is there Federal demand for the product?
Are Federal procurement personnel looking for biobased
products?
Will an item create a high demand for biobased feed stock?
Does manufacturing of products within this item increase
potential for rural development?
After completing this evaluation, USDA prioritizes the list of
items for designation. USDA then gathers information on products within
the highest priority items and, as sufficient information becomes
available for groups of approximately 10 items, a new rulemaking
package will be developed to designate the items within that group. The
list of items may change, with items being added or dropped, and the
order in which items are proposed for designation is likely to change
because the information necessary to designate an item may take more
time to obtain than an item lower on the list.
In today's proposed rulemaking, USDA is proposing to designate 10
items for the preferred procurement program: 2-Cycle engine oils; lip
care products; biodegradable films; stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids; biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners; greases; dust
suppressants; carpets; and carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA has
determined that each of these 10 items meets the necessary statutory
requirements--namely, that they are being produced with biobased
products and that their procurement by procuring agencies will carry
out the following objectives of section 9002:
To increase demand for biobased products, which would in
turn increase demand for agricultural commodities that can serve as
feedstocks for the production of biobased products;
To spur development of the industrial base through value-
added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities;
and
To enhance the nation's energy security by substituting
biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural
gas.
Further, USDA has sufficient information on these 10 items to
determine their availability and to conduct the requisite analyses to
determine their biobased content and their economic and technological
feasibility, including life cycle costs.
Mature Markets. Section 2902.5(c)(2) of the final guidelines states
that USDA will not designate items for preferred procurement that are
determined to have mature markets. Mature markets are described as
items that had significant national market penetration in 1972. USDA
contacted manufacturers, manufacturing associations, and industry
researchers to determine if, in 1972, biobased products had a
significant market share within any of the items proposed for
designation today. USDA found that biobased products within none of the
10 items proposed for designation today had a significant market share
in 1972 and that, generally, the companies that produce biobased
products within these proposed designated items have been in business
for only 10 to 20 years.
Overlap with EPA-Designated Recovered Content Products. In today's
proposed rule, two of the 10 items may overlap with EPA-designated
recovered content products. These two items are: stationary equipment
hydraulic fluid and carpets. For these two items, USDA is requesting
that certain information on the qualifying biobased products be made
available by their manufacturers to assist Federal agencies in
determining
[[Page 47595]]
if an overlap exists between the qualifying biobased product and the
applicable EPA-designated recovered content product. As noted earlier
in this preamble, USDA is requesting information on overlap situations
to further help procuring agencies make informed decisions when faced
with purchasing a recovered content material product or a biobased
product. As this information is developed, USDA will make it available
on the FB4P Web site.
Exemptions. When proposing items for preferred procurement under
the FB4P, USDA will identify, on an item-by-item basis, items that
would be exempt from preferred procurement on the basis of their use in
products and systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related
missions. USDA believes it is inappropriate to apply the biobased
purchasing requirement to tactical equipment unless the Department of
Defense has documented that these products can meet the performance
requirements for such equipment and are available in sufficient supply
to meet domestic and overseas deployment needs. After evaluating these
situations for each of the 10 items being proposed for designation,
USDA is proposing to exempt 2-cycle engine oils, stationary hydraulic
fluids, greases, and dust suppressants from preferred procurement under
the FB4P when used in combat or combat-related missions.
USDA is proposing an exemption for all designated items when used
in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment, because failure of
such items could lead to catastrophic consequences. Many, if not all,
items that USDA is or is planning to designate for preferred
procurement are or will be used in space applications. Frequently, such
applications used these items in ways that are different from their
more ``conventional'' use on Earth. It is difficult, if not impossible,
to forecast what situations may occur when these items are used in
space and how they will perform. Therefore, USDA believes is it
reasonable to limit the preferred procurement program to items used in
more conventional applications and is proposing to exempt all
designated items used in space applications from the FB4P.
For each item being proposed for exemption, the exemption does not
extend to contractors performing work for DoD or NASA. For example, if
a contractor is producing a part for use on the space shuttle, the
metalworking fluid the contractor uses to produce the part should be
biobased (provided it meets the specifications for metalworking). The
exemption does apply, however, if the product being purchased by the
contractor is for use in combat or combat-related missions or for use
in space applications. For example, if the part being produced by the
contractor would actually be part of the space shuttle, then the
exemption applies.
Each of the 10 proposed designated items are discussed in the
following sections.
1. 2-Cycle Engine Oils
2-Cycle engine oils are lubricant products formulated to provide
clean-burning lubrication, decreased spark plug fouling, reduced
deposit formation, and reduced engine wear in 2-cycle gasoline engines
(commonly found in lawn and garden equipment, small marine craft, and
personal recreational vehicles such as motorcycles and snowmobiles).
Biobased 2-cycle engine oils are typically formulated from natural soy,
canola, or other seed-based oil feed stocks.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
products and systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related
missions and in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased 2-cycle engine oils, USDA identified 11 different
manufacturers producing 17 individual biobased products. These 11
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
2-cycle engine oils, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that many of these products have been tested against multiple
industry performance standards and are being used commercially. While
other applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
ASTM D445-04e2, Standard Test Method for Kinematic
Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of
Dynamic Viscosity);
ASTM D93-02a, Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point by
Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester;
ASTM D2896-05 Standard Test Method for Base Number of
Petroleum Products by Potentiometric Perchloric Acid Titration;
ASTM D97-05, Standard Test Method for Pour Point of
Petroleum Products;
ASTM D2500-02e1, Standard Test Method for Cloud Point of
Petroleum Products;
ASTM D4682-87 (2002), Standard Specification for
Miscibility with Gasoline and Fluidity of Two-Stroke-Cycle Gasoline
Engine Lubricants;
CEC-L-33-T82 is comparable to ASTM 5864 and tests for
biodegradability;
ASTM D2619, Standard Test Method for Hydrolytic Stability
of Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle Method);
ASTM D892, Standard Test Method for Foaming
Characteristics of Lubricating Oils;
ASTM D665, Standard Test Method for Rust-Preventing
Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of Water;
ASTM D2270, Standard Practice for Calculating Viscosity
Index From Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 [deg]C; and
International Organization for Standardization
ISO GD Surface chemical analysis--Glow discharge optical
emission spectrometry (GD-OES).
USDA contacted procurement officials with various procuring
agencies including the General Services Administration, several offices
within the Defense Logistics Agency, the OFEE, USDA Departmental
Administration, the National Park Service, EPA, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and OMB in an effort to gather information on the purchases
of 2-cycle engine oils and products within the other nine items
proposed for designation today. Communications with these officials
lead to the conclusion that obtaining credible current usage statistics
and specific potential markets within the Federal government for
biobased products within the 10 proposed designated items is not
possible at this time. Most of the contacted officials reported that
procurement data are reported in higher level groupings of materials
and supplies than the proposed designated items. Also, the purchasing
of such materials as part of contracted services and with individual
purchase cards used to purchase products locally further obscures
credible data on purchases of specific products.
USDA also investigated the Web site http://www.fedbizopps.gov, a
site which lists Federal contract purchase opportunities greater than
$25,000. The information provided on this Web site, however, is for
broad categories of products rather than the specific types of products
that are included in today's rulemaking. Therefore, USDA has been
[[Page 47596]]
unable to obtain data on the amount of 2-cycle engine oils purchased by
procuring agencies. However, Federal agencies routinely perform, or
procure contract services such as lawn maintenance services, that
utilize small gas powered devices. Thus, they have a need for 2-cycle
engine oils and for services that require the use of 2-cycle engine
oils. Designation of 2-cycle engine oils will promote the use of
biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased 2-cycle engine oils was performed for
three of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 1
summarizes the BEES results for the three 2-cycle engine oils. As seen
in Table 1, the environmental performance score, which includes human
health, ranges from 0.0474 to 0.0661 points per gallon (mixed with fuel
and ready to use). The environmental performance score indicates the
share of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to one gallon (mixed with fuel and ready to use) of the
product, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. For example, the total
amount of criteria air pollutants emitted in the U.S. in one year was
divided by the total U.S. population to derive a ``criteria air
pollutants per person value.'' The production and use of one gallon
(mixed with fuel and ready to use) of 2-cycle engine oil sample A was
estimated to contribute 0.000002 percent of this value.
Table 1.--Summary of BEES Results for 2-Cycle Engine Oils
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Cycle engine oils
Parameters -----------------------------------------
Sample A Sample B Sample C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental 0.0474 0.0485 0.0661
Performance--Total Score \1\.
Acidification (5%)............ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%).. 0.0002 0.0002 0.0008
Ecological Toxicity (11%)..... 0.0036 0.0036 0.0092
Eutrophication (5%)........... 0.0017 0.0018 0.0035
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).... 0.0200 0.0204 0.0215
Global Warming (16%).......... 0.0060 0.0061 0.0080
Habitat Alteration (16%)...... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%)............ 0.0080 0.0085 0.0103
Indoor Air (11%).............. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%).......... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)..................... 0.0079 0.0078 0.0122
Water Intake (3%)............. 0.0000 0.0001 0.0006
Economic Performance (Life 2.70 2.95 4.84
Cycle Costs ($)) \2\.........
First Cost.................... 2.70 2.95 4.84
Future Cost (3.9%)............ (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............... 1 gallon (mixed with fuel and ready to
use)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
When evaluating the information presented in Table 1, as well as in
the subsequent tables presented in this preamble, it should be noted
that comparisons of the environmental performance scores are valid only
among products within a designated item. Thus, comparisons of the
scores presented in Table 1 and the scores presented in tables for
other proposed designated items are not meaningful.
The numbers in parentheses following each of the 12 environmental
impacts listed in the tables in this preamble indicate weighting
factors. The weighting factors represent the relative importance of the
12 environmental impacts, including human health impacts, that
contribute to the BEES Environmental Score. They are derived from lists
of the relative importance of these impacts developed by the EPA
Science Advisory Board for the purpose of advising EPA as to how best
to allocate its limited resources among environmental impact areas.
Note that a lower Environmental Performance score is better than a
higher score.
Life cycle costs presented in the tables in this preamble are per
the appropriate functional unit for the proposed designated item.
Future costs are discounted to present value using the OMB discount
rate of 3.9 percent.
The life cycle costs of the submitted 2-cycle engine oils range
from $2.70 to $4.84 (present value dollars) per gallon (mixed with fuel
and ready to use). Present value dollars presented in this preamble
represent the sum of all costs associated with a product over a fixed
period of time, including any applicable costs for purchase,
installation, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and
disposal. Present value dollars presented in this preamble reflect 2005
dollars. Dollars are expressed in present value terms to adjust for the
effects of inflation. The complete results of the BEES analysis,
extrapolated to the item level, for each item proposed for designation
in today's proposed rulemaking can be found at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
2. Lip Care Products
Lip care products are personal care products formulated to
replenish the moisture and/or prevent drying, thereby promoting better
skin health of the lips. Biobased lip care products are typically
formulated from natural soy or other seed-based oil feed stocks.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased lip care products, USDA identified 10 different
manufacturers producing 28 individual biobased products. These 10
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
lip care products, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are typically tested against an
[[Page 47597]]
industry standard and are being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Stability Test.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
various Federal agencies procure personal care products for use by
their employees. Thus, they have a need for lip care products.
Designation of lip care products will promote the use of biobased
products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased lip care products was performed for two of
the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 2 summarizes the
BEES results for the two lip care products. As seen in Table 2, the
environmental performance score, which includes human health, ranges
from 0.1484 to 0.1778 points per case of lip balm (i.e., 2,380 tubes).
The environmental performance score indicates the share of annual per
capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to one case of
the product, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 2.--Summary of BEES Results for Lip Care Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lip care products
Parameters -------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.1484 0.1778
\1\..........................................
Acidification (5%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%).................. 0.0007 0.0010
Ecological Toxicity (11%)..................... 0.0409 0.0447
Eutrophication (5%)........................... 0.0157 0.0101
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................... 0.0412 0.0533
Global Warming (16%).......................... 0.0136 0.0182
Habitat Alteration (16%)...................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%)............................ 0.0128 0.0180
Indoor Air (11%).............................. 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)..................................... 0.0076 0.0105
Water Intake (3%)............................. 0.0159 0.0220
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) \2\ 1,071 2,356
First Cost.................................... 1,071 2,356
Future Cost (3.9%)............................ (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................... one case (2,380 tubes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle costs of the submitted lip care products range from
$1,071 to $2,356 (present value dollars) per case of lip balm.
3. Biodegradable Films
Biodegradable films are used in packaging, wrappings, linings, and
other similar applications and are capable of meeting ASTM D6400
standards for biodegradability. For the purpose of defining this
designated item, biodegradable films do not include films used for
agricultural purposes (such as films that would be used to cover
fields) and durable films. Durable films will be proposed as a separate
item for preferred procurement.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased biodegradable films, USDA identified 15 different
manufacturers producing 45 individual products. These 15 manufacturers
do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased biodegradable
films, merely those identified during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that
these products are typically tested against one or more industry
performance standards and are being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
ASTM D6400, Standard Specification for Compostable
Plastics; and
Deutsches Institut fur Normung, the German Institute for
Standardization DIN V 54900 Standard for testing the
compostability of polymeric materials.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
Federal agencies routinely procure products, such as trash can liners,
leaf collection bags, and packaging materials, that are made from
biodegradable films. In addition, many Federal agencies contract for
services involving the use of such products. Thus, they have a need for
products made from biodegradable films and for services that use
products made from biodegradable films. Designation of biodegradable
films will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased biodegradable films was performed for two
of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 3 summarizes the
BEES results for the two biobased biodegradable films. As seen in Table
3, the environmental performance score, which includes human health,
ranges from 0.0150 to 0.5682 points per kilogram of biodegradable film.
The environmental performance score indicates the share of annual per
capita U.S. environmental
[[Page 47598]]
impacts that is attributable to one kilogram of the product, expressed
in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 3.--Summary of BEES Results for Biodegradable Films
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameters Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.5682 0.0150
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0001 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0046 0.0001
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0277 0.0006
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0330 0.0005
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.2052 0.0084
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0717 0.0020
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0893 0.0020
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.1365 0.0012
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0001 0.0002
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 6.60 8.17
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 6.60 8.17
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. one kilogram
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted biodegradable films was $6.60
to $8.17 (present value dollars) per kilogram of biodegradable film.
4. Stationary Equipment Hydraulic Fluids
Stationary equipment hydraulic fluids are hydraulic fluid products
formulated for use in the hydraulic systems of stationary equipment.
Products in this item act as a mechanical power transmission medium to
replace mineral oils and to provide wear, rust, and oxidation
protection for machine tools and equipment. Biobased stationary
hydraulic fluids are typically formulated from natural soy, canola, or
other seed oil-based feed stocks.
Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the EPA-
designated recovered content product: Re-refined lubricating oils.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
products and systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related
missions and in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased stationary equipment hydraulic fluids, USDA identified
20 different manufacturers producing 66 individual biobased products.
These 20 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of
biobased stationary equipment hydraulic fluids, merely those identified
during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by
these manufacturers indicates that many of these products have been
tested against multiple industry performance standards and are being
used commercially. While other applicable performance standards may
exist, applicable industry performance standards against which these
products have been typically tested, as identified by manufacturers of
products within this item, include:
ASTM D1122-97a(2002), Standard Test Method for Density or
Relative Density of Engine Coolant Concentrates and Engine Coolants By
The Hydrometer;
ASTM D1298-99e2, Standard Test Method for Density,
Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum
and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method;
ASTM D130-04, Standard Test Method for Corrosiveness to
Copper from Petroleum Products by Copper Strip Test;
ASTM D1401-02, Standard Test Method for Water Separability
of Petroleum Oils and Synthetic Fluids;
ASTM D1500-04a, Standard Test Method for ASTM Color of
Petroleum Products (ASTM Color Scale);
ASTM D2266-01, Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive
Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method);
ASTM D2270-04, Standard Practice for Calculating Viscosity
Index From Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 [deg]C;
ASTM D2272-02, Standard Test Method for Oxidation
Stability of Steam Turbine Oils by Rotating Pressure Vessel;
ASTM D2532-03, Standard Test Method for Viscosity and
Viscosity Change After Standing at Low Temperature of Aircraft Turbine
Lubricants;
ASTM D2619-95(2002)e1, Standard Test Method for Hydrolytic
Stability of Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle Method);
ASTM D287-92(2000)e1, Standard Test Method for API Gravity
of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Hydrometer Method);
ASTM D2983-04a, Standard Test Method for Low-Temperature
Viscosity of Lubricants Measured by Brookfield Viscometer;
ASTM D4052-96(2002)e1, Standard Test Method for Density
and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter;
ASTM D4172-94(2004), Standard Test Method for Wear
Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four-Ball Method);
ASTM D445-04e2, Standard Test Method for Kinematic
Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of
Dynamic Viscosity);
ASTM D567-53(1955), Method for Calculating Viscosity Index
(Withdrawn 1966);
ASTM D5864-00, Standard Test Method for Determining
Aerobic Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or Their Components; and
ASTM D665-03, Standard Test Method for Rust-Preventing
[[Page 47599]]
Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of Water.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
Federal agencies routinely own and operate stationary equipment with
hydraulic cylinders. In addition, many Federal agencies contract for
services involving the use of such equipment. Thus, they have a need
for stationary equipment hydraulic fluids and for services that require
the use of stationary equipment hydraulic fluids. Designation of
stationary equipment hydraulic fluids will promote the use of biobased
products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of stationary equipment hydraulic fluids was performed
for two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 4
summarizes the BEES results for the two stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids. As seen in Table 4, the environmental performance score, which
includes human health, ranges from 0.0042 to 0.0524 points per gallon
of hydraulic fluid. The environmental performance score indicates the
share of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to one gallon of hydraulic fluid, expressed in 100ths of 1
percent.
Table 4.--Summary of BEES Results for Stationary Equipment Hydraulic
Fluids
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary equipment
hydraulic fluids
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0042 0.0524
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0000 0.0002
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0012 0.0093
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0002 0.0181
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0012 0.0063
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0008 0.0054
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0004 0.0012
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0002 0.0045
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0002 0.0074
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 10.45 8.75
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 10.45 8.75
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. one gallon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids range from $8.75 to $10.45 (present value dollars) per gallon of
hydraulic fluid.
5. Biodegradable Cutlery
Biodegradable cutlery is a group of products that is used as hand-
held, disposable utensils designed for one-time use in eating food and
that is capable of meeting ASTM D5338 standard for biodegradability.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased biodegradable cutlery, USDA identified 7 different
manufacturers producing 15 individual biobased products. These 7
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
biodegradable cutlery, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are typically tested against one or more
industry performance standards and are being used commercially. While
other applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
ASTM D5338, Standard Test Method for Determining Aerobic
Biodegradation of Plastic Materials Under Controlled Composting
Conditions;
ASTM D6400, Standard Specification for Compostable
Plastics;
D5209-92, Standard Test Method for Determining the Aerobic
Biodegradation of Plastic Materials in the Presence of Municipal Sewage
Sludge (Discontinued 2001); and
Deutsches Institut fur Normung, the German Institute for
Standardization DIN CERTCO 54900 Standard for testing the
compostability of polymeric materials.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
many Federal agencies routinely perform, or procure contract services
to perform, food preparation and distribution activities that utilize
disposable cutlery. Thus, they have a need for disposable cutlery and
for services that require the use of disposable cutlery. Designation of
biodegradable cutlery will promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased biodegradable cutlery was performed for
two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 5 summarizes
the BEES results for the two biodegradable cutlery products. As seen in
Table 5, the environmental performance score, which includes human
health, ranges from 0.0565 to 0.0690 points per 1000 pieces of cutlery.
[[Page 47600]]
The environmental performance score indicates the share of annual per
capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to 1,000 pieces
of cutlery, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 5.--Summary of BEES Results for Biodegradable Cutlery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biodegradable cutlery
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0565 0.0690
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0002 0.0005
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0113 0.0021
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0052 0.0014
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0236 0.0440
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0056 0.0085
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0065 0.0079
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0024 0.0035
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0017 0.0011
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 32.00 32.00
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 32.00 32.00
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. 1,000 pieces of cutlery
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted biodegradable cutlery was $32
present value dollars) per 1,000 pieces of cutlery.
6. Glass Cleaners
Glass cleaners are products designed for use in cleaning glass
surfaces such as mirrors, car windows, and computer monitors.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
Procuring agencies should note that, as discussed in section II of
this preamble, not all biobased cleaning products are ``environmentally
preferable'' to non-biobased products. Unless cleaning products have
been formulated to contain no (or reduced levels of) metals and toxic
and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life, the
environment, or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable
cleaning products, Federal agencies must compare the ``cradle-to-
grave'' impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of both biobased
and non-biobased products.
For biobased glass cleaners, USDA identified 16 different
manufacturers producing 19 individual biobased products. These 16
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
glass cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are typically tested against one relevant
measure of performance and are being used commercially. While
applicable performance standards and other measures of performance may
exist, applicable industry performance standards and relevant measures
of performance against which these products have been typically tested,
as identified by manufacturers of products within this item and by
others, include:
U.S. Navy, Navsea 6840 Surface Ship (Non-Submarine)
Authorized Chemical Cleaning Products and Dispensing Systems.
Green Seal, GS-37, Environmental Standard for General
Purpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners used for Industrial and
Institutional Purposes.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
Federal agencies routinely procure cleaning and maintenance services
and materials, including glass cleaners. Thus, they have a need for
glass cleaners and for services that require the use of glass cleaners.
Designation of glass cleaners will promote the use of biobased
products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased glass cleaners was performed for two of
the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 6 summarizes the
BEES results for the two glass cleaners. As seen in Table 6, the
environmental performance score, which includes human health, ranges
from 0.08787 to 0.9818 points per 1,000 gallons of biobased glass
cleaner, diluted and ready to use. The environmental performance score
indicates the share of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts
that is attributable to 1,000 gallons of glass cleaner, diluted and
ready to use, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
[[Page 47601]]
Table 6.--Summary of BEES Results for Glass Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass cleaners
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0878 0.9818
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0001
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0008 0.0064
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0092 0.0578
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0021 0.0124
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0310 0.3953
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0078 0.1317
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0108 0.1840
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0042 0.0492
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0219 0.1449
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 89.06 983.00
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 89.06 983.00
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. 1,000 gallons, diluted and
ready to use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted glass cleaners range from $89
to $983 (present value dollars) per 1,000 gallons of glass cleaner,
diluted and ready to use.
7. Greases
Greases are lubricants composed of oils thickened with soaps or
other thickeners to a semisolid or solid consistency. Grease
composition (i.e., greases made with clay thickeners versus those made
with metallic soap thickeners) must be considered carefully because of
potential incompatibility when mixed. This can occur between two
different biobased greases, between two different non-biobased
(petroleum) greases, and between a biobased grease and a petroleum-
based grease. Machinery lubricated with one particular type of grease
must be purged properly before lubrication with an incompatible grease.
Greases are used in many different applications. Based on the
information acquired, USDA is proposing to subcategorize this item into
four specified-use subcategories and one ``not elsewhere specified''
subcategory as follows: Food grade greases, multipurpose greases, rail
track greases, fifth wheel (coupling plate between the tractor trailer
truck and the semi-trailer) greases, and greases that do not fit any of
the other four subcategories. USDA believes this is reasonable because
of the varying conditions that each of the four specified-use
subcategories require of greases in order to perform satisfactorily and
in accordance with any regulatory requirements (e.g., for food grade
greases).
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
products and systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related
missions and in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased greases, USDA identified 18 different manufacturers
producing 67 individual biobased products. For the five subcategories
of greases for which USDA is proposing designation, USDA identified at
least two manufacturers of each type. The 18 manufacturers total, and
those identified for each subcategory of grease, do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased greases, merely those identified
during USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that several
of these products have been tested against multiple industry
performance standards and are being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
ASTM D1264-03e1, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Water Washout Characteristics of Lubricating Greases;
ASTM D127-05, Standard Test Method for Drop Melting Point
of Petroleum Wax, Including Petrolatum;
ASTM D130-04, Standard Test Method for Corrosiveness to
Copper from Petroleum Products by Copper Strip Test;
ASTM D1742-94 (2000)e1, Standard Test Method for Oil
Separation from Lubricating Grease During Storage;
ASTM D1743-05a, Standard Test Method for Determining
Corrosion Preventive Properties of Lubricating Greases;
ASTM D1748-02, Standard Test Method for Rust Protection by
Metal Preservatives in the Humidity Cabinet;
ASTM D1831-00e1, Standard Test Method for Roll Stability
of Lubricating Grease;
ASTM D217-02, Standard Test Methods for Cone Penetration
of Lubricating Grease;
ASTM D2265-00, Standard Test Method for Dropping Point of
Lubricating Grease Over Wide Temperature Range;
ASTM D2266-01, Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive
Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method);
ASTM D2270-04, Standard Practice for Calculating Viscosity
Index From Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 [deg]C;
ASTM D2509-03, Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Load-Carrying Capacity of Lubricating Grease (Timken Method);
ASTM D2569-97 (2002), Standard Test Method for
Distillation of Pitch;
ASTM D2596-97 (2002)e1, Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Extreme-Pressure Properties of Lubricating Grease (Four-
Ball Method);
[[Page 47602]]
ASTM D445-04e2, Standard Test Method for Kinematic
Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of
Dynamic Viscosity);
ASTM D566-02, Standard Test Method for Dropping Point of
Lubricating Grease;
ASTM D5864-00, Standard Test Method for Determining
Aerobic Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or Their Components;
ASTM D6184-98, Standard Test Method for Oil Separation
from Lubricating Grease (Conical Sieve Method);
ASTM D92-05a, Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire
Points by Cleveland Open Cup Tester;
ASTM D942-02, Standard Test Method for Oxidation Stability
of Lubricating Greases by the Oxygen Bomb Method;
ASTM D97-05, Standard Test Method for Pour Point of
Petroleum Products;
Co-ordinating European Council CEC-L-33-A-93 Test
to predict the potential biodegradation of mineral oil-based lubricants
in soil; and
National Lubricating Grease Institute NLGI 2
Greases classified according to their consistency range as measured by
the worked penetration at 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]C): 265 to 295.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
Federal agencies routinely operate, or procure contract services to
operate, the types of machinery and equipment that require the use of
greases. Thus, they have a need for greases and for services that
require the use of greases. Designation of greases will promote the use
of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased greases was performed for two of the
products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 7 summarizes the BEES
results for the two greases. As seen in Table 7, the environmental
performance score, which includes human health, ranges from 0.0281 to
0.0451 points per gallon of grease. The environmental performance score
indicates the share of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts
that is attributable to one gallon of grease, expressed in 100ths of 1
percent.
Table 7.--Summary of BEES Results for Greases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greases
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0281 0.0451
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0002 0.0002
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0036 0.0103
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0026 0.0126
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0105 0.0067
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0042 0.0046
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0035 0.0022
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0022 0.0034
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0013 0.0051
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 14.84 52.03
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 14.84 52.03
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. one gallon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted greases range from $14.84 to
$52.03 (present value dollars) per gallon of grease.
8. Dust Suppressants
Dust suppressants are products formulated to reduce or eliminate
the spread of dust associated with gravel roads, dirt parking lots, or
similar sources of dust, and include products used in equivalent indoor
applications (such as in indoor arenas where dirt parking lots may be
found). This item does not cover products designed for indoor uses
(such as the application of a dust suppressant to a dust mop), except
as noted above.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
products and systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related
missions and in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased dust suppressants, USDA identified 12 different
manufacturers producing 13 individual biobased products. These 12
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
dust suppressants, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are typically tested against one or more
industry performance standards and are being used commercially. While
other applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
Missouri State Specifications; and
Water runoff quality test (Minnesota DOT).
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
Federal agencies routinely use, or procure contract services that use,
dust suppressants in construction, forestry, transportation, and
maintenance
[[Page 47603]]
activities. Thus, they have a need for dust suppressants and for
services that require the use of dust suppressants. Designation of dust
suppressants will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased dust suppressants was performed for two of
the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 8 summarizes the
BEES results for the two dust suppressants. As seen in Table 8, the
environmental performance score, which includes human health, ranges
from 0.0335 to 0.7545 points per 1,000 square feet of application. The
environmental performance score indicates the share of annual per
capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to 1,000 square
feet of application, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 8.--Summary of BEES Results for Dust suppressants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dust suppressants
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0335 0.7545
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0002 0.0052
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0194 0.1417
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0015 0.1238
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0048 0.2064
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0024 0.0965
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0025 0.0737
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0010 0.0421
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0017 0.0651
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 7.20 47.00
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 7.20 47.00
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. 1,000 square feet of
application.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted dust suppressants range from
$7.20 to $47 (present value dollars) per 1,000 square feet of
application.
9. Carpets
Carpets are floor coverings composed of woven fibers, with a
backing.
Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the EPA-
designated recovered content product: Carpet (polyester).
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased carpets, USDA identified 7 different manufacturers
producing 19 individual biobased products. These 7 manufacturers do not
necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased carpets, merely those
identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information
supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are
typically tested against one or more industry performance standards and
are being used commercially. While other applicable performance
standards may exist, applicable industry performance standards against
which these products have been typically tested, as identified by
manufacturers of products within this item, include:
Aachen Test, ISO/EN Dimensional Stability: Machine-made
textile floor coverings--Determination of dimensional changes due to
the effects of varied water and heat conditions;
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
Color Fastness AATCC 165 Crocking: Textile Floor Coverings--
AATCC Crockmeter Method;
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
Color Fastness AATCC 164 Oxides of Nitrogen in the Atmosphere
under High Humidities;
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
Color Fastness AATCC 129 Ozone in the Atmosphere under High
Humidities;
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
Color Fastness AATCC 138 Cleaning: Washing of Textile Floor
Coverings;
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
Color Fastness AATCC 107 Water;
ASTM D1335, Standard Test Method for Tuft Bind of Pile
Yarn Floor Coverings; and
ASTM D3936, Standard Test Method for Resistance to
Delamination of the Secondary Backing of Pile Yarn Floor Covering.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. USDA found that in fiscal year 2005 approximately
$34 million of carpet were purchased on GSA schedule, of which $5.2
million met the recycled content as defined by Executive Order 13101.
While it is unknown what percentage of total carpet purchased by the
Federal government the $34 million represents, it is clear that Federal
agencies purchase and install large volumes of carpets. Designation of
carpets, therefore, will promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased carpets was performed for two of the
products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 9 summarizes the BEES
results for the two carpets. As seen in Table 9, the environmental
performance score, which includes
[[Page 47604]]
human health, was 0.2429 per 1 square yard of carpet over 50 years for
both samples. The environmental performance score indicates the share
of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to
one square yard of carpet over 50 years, expressed in 100ths of 1
percent.
Table 9.--Summary of BEES Results for Carpets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpets
Parameters -----------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score \1\. 0.2429
Acidification (5%).............................. 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%).................... 0.0014
Ecological Toxicity (11%)....................... 0.0165
Eutrophication (5%)............................. 0.0112
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%)...................... 0.1028
Global Warming (16%)............................ 0.0240
Habitat Alteration (16%)........................ 0.0000
Human Health (11%).............................. 0.0278
Indoor Air (11%)................................ 0.0377
Ozone Depletion (5%)............................ 0.0000
Smog (6%)....................................... 0.0079
Water Intake (3%)............................... 0.0136
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) \2\. 39.22
First Cost...................................... 20.00
Future Cost (3.9%).............................. 19.22
Functional Unit................................. one square yard over
50 years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
The life cycle cost of both submitted carpets was $39.22 per square
yard of carpet over 50 years.
10. Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners
Carpet and upholstery cleaners are products used to clean carpets
and upholstery, through a dry or wet process, found in locations such
as houses, cars, and workplaces. As proposed, this item does not
include spot cleaners.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased carpet and upholstery cleaners, USDA identified 13
different manufacturers producing 17 individual biobased products.
These 13 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of
biobased carpet and upholstery cleaners, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these products are typically tested
against one relevant measure of performance and are being used
commercially. While other relevant measurements of performance may
exist, applicable relevant measurements of performance against which
these products have been typically tested, as identified by
manufacturers of products within this item, include:
U.S. Navy, Navsea 6840 Surface Ship (Non-Submarine)
Authorized Chemical Cleaning Products and Dispensing Systems.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
Federal agencies routinely perform, and procure services that perform,
the types of cleaning activities that utilize carpet and upholstery
cleaners. Thus, they have a need for carpet and upholstery cleaners and
for services that require the use of carpet and upholstery cleaners.
Designation of carpet and upholstery cleaners will promote the use of
biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased carpet and upholstery cleaners was
performed for two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table
10 summarizes the BEES results for the two carpet and upholstery
cleaners. As seen in Table 10, the environmental performance score,
which includes human health, ranges from 0.0898 to 0.1542 points per
1,000 square feet of carpet cleaned. The environmental performance
score indicates the share of annual per capita U.S. environmental
impacts that is attributable to 1,000 square feet of carpet cleaned,
expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 10.--Summary of BEES Results for Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpet and upholstery
cleaners
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0898 0.1542
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0007 0.0015
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0069 0.0124
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0007 0.0016
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0330 0.0733
[[Page 47605]]
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0101 0.0233
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0164 0.0370
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0196 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0024 0.0049
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0000 0.0002
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 20.29 4.55
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 20.29 4.55
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. 1,000 square feet of
carpet cleaned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted carpet and upholstery cleaners
range from $4.55 to $20.29 (present value dollars) per 1,000 square
feet of carpet cleaned. Based on information supplied by the
manufacturers, USDA has confirmed that the qualifying biobased content
in each of the samples tested is derived, in whole or in significant
part, from renewable domestic agricultural or forestry material.
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
Section 9002(e)(1)(C) directs USDA to recommend minimum biobased
content levels where appropriate. In today's proposed rulemaking, USDA
is proposing minimum biobased product content for each of the 10 items
proposed for designation based on information currently available to
USDA.
As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, USDA relied entirely
on manufacturers' voluntary submission of samples to support the
proposed designation of these 10 items. The data presented in the
following paragraphs are the test results from all of the product
samples that were submitted for analysis. It is the responsibility of
the manufacturers to ``self-certify'' that each product being offered
as a biobased product for preferred procurement contains qualifying
feedstock. As contained in the Guidelines, USDA will consider
qualifying feedstocks for biobased products originating in ``designated
countries'' (as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) Sec. 25.003)) as well as from the United States. USDA
will develop a monitoring process for these self-certifications to
ensure manufacturers are using qualifying feedstocks. If
misrepresentations are found, USDA will remove the subject biobased
product from the preferred procurement program and may take further
actions as deemed appropriate.
As a result of public comments received on the first designated
items rulemaking proposal, USDA decided to account for the slight
imprecision in the analytical method used to determine biobased content
of products when establishing the minimum biobased content. Thus,
rather than establishing the minimum biobased content for an item at
the tested biobased content of the product selected as the basis for
the minimum value, USDA is establishing the minimum biobased content at
a level 3 percentage points less than the tested value. USDA believes
that this adjustment is appropriate to account for the expected
variations in analytical results.
USDA has determined that setting a minimum biobased content for
designated items is appropriate. Establishing a minimum biobased
content will encourage competition among manufacturers to develop
products with higher biobased contents and will prevent products with
de minimus biobased content from being purchased as a means of
satisfying the requirements of section 9002. USDA believes that it is
in the best interest of the preferred procurement program for minimum
biobased contents to be set at levels that will realistically allow
products to possess the necessary performance attributes and allow them
to compete with non-biobased products in performance and economics.
Setting the minimum biobased content for an item at a level met by
several of the tested products will provide more products from which
procurement officials may choose, will encourage the most widespread
usage of biobased products by procuring agencies, and is expected to
accomplish the objectives of section 9002. Procuring agencies are
encouraged to seek products with the highest biobased content that is
practicable in all 10 of the proposed designated items.
The following paragraphs summarize the information that USDA used
to propose minimum biobased contents within each proposed designated
item.
1. 2-Cycle Engine Oils
Seven of the 17 biobased 2-cycle engine oils identified have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866.\1\ The biobased content
of these 7 samples ranged from 6 percent to 77 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM D6866 (Standard Test Methods for Determining the
Biobased Content of Natural Range Materials Using Radiocarbon and
Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry Analysis) is used to distinguish
between carbon from fossil resources (non-biobased carbon) and
carbon from renewable sources (biobased carbon). The biobased
content is expressed as the percentage of total carbon that is
biobased carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 7 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content of 10
percent. USDA evaluated the manufacturer's performance claims for the
product whose biobased content was tested at 6 percent. The available
information for this product did not indicate any unique performance
characteristics or features not found in products with a higher
biobased content. Therefore, USDA dropped this product from
consideration in setting the minimum biobased content for the item.
USDA found that the product with 10 percent biobased content, the
second-lowest tested value, was formulated to meet the
[[Page 47606]]
specifications of Japanese small engine manufacturers. None of the
other products tested made this claim or indicated that they had been
tested using the Japanese performance standards. Because of the
predominance of Japanese engines in the marketplace, USDA believes that
establishing a minimum biobased content for this item based on a
product formulated to meet their performance specifications is
reasonable. To account for possible variability in the results of ASTM
D6866, as discussed earlier, the tested 10 percent value was then
adjusted to 7 percent.
2. Lip Care Products
Two of the 28 available biobased lip care products have been tested
for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased content of these
two lip care products was 85 percent and 88 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 82 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content of
85 percent. While no differences were found in the performance of the
two products tested, USDA believes that the slight difference between
the biobased content of two products tested is insignificant. Also,
establishing the minimum biobased content for the item based on the
lower tested value offers procurement agents more choice in selecting
products to purchase.
3. Biodegradable Films
Thirteen of the 45 biobased biodegradable films identified have
been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased content
of these 13 biodegradable films ranged from 1 percent to 96 percent.
USDA will not establish the minimum biobased content for a designated
item based on products with essentially no biobased content; that is,
in this instance, on either the product with a tested biobased content
of 1 percent or the product with a tested biobased content of 2
percent. The biobased content of the remaining 11 products ranged from
25 percent to 96 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 22 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content of
25 percent. The manufacturer of the product with the biobased content
of 25 percent also manufactures biodegradable films with 48 and 52
percent biobased content. The product with 25 percent biobased content
has a significantly longer shelf-life than the other products. Because
Federal procuring agencies are likely to purchase biodegradable films
in larger quantities than the average consumer, USDA believes that
shelf-life is a key performance criteria for establishing the minimum
biobased content of this item. Therefore, USDA is proposing to
establish the minimum biobased content for this item based on this
particular product. Furthermore, establishing the minimum biobased
content level at this level will offer procuring agencies more choices
in selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most
widespread usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
4. Stationary Equipment Hydraulic Fluids
Twenty two of the 66 biobased stationary equipment hydraulic fluids
identified have been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The
biobased content of these 22 biobased stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids ranged from 49 percent to 100 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 46 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content of
49. Stationary equipment hydraulic fluids can be formulated to meet a
wide range of demands. Because of the resulting range in product
characteristics, USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content
at a level that will include all of the products sampled. USDA believes
that it is in the best interest of the preferred procurement program
for minimum biobased contents to be set at levels that will
realistically allow products to possess the necessary performance
attributes and allow them to compete with non-biobased products in
performance and economics. Furthermore, setting the minimum biobased
content level based on the lowest level found among the sampled
products will offer procuring agencies more choices in selecting
products to purchase and will encourage the most widespread usage of
biobased products by procuring agencies.
5. Biodegradable Cutlery
Five of the 15 biobased biodegradable cutlery identified have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased contents of
these five biobased biodegradable products ranged from 36 percent to
100 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 33 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content of
36 percent. USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content at a
level that will include all of the products sampled. USDA believes that
it is in the best interest of the preferred procurement program for
minimum biobased contents to be set at levels that will realistically
allow products to possess the necessary performance attributes and
allow them to compete with non-biobased products in performance and
economics. Furthermore, setting the minimum biobased content level
based on the lowest level found among the sampled products will offer
procuring agencies more choices in selecting products to purchase and
will encourage the most widespread usage of biobased products by
procuring agencies.
6. Glass Cleaners
Seven of the 19 biobased glass cleaners identified have been tested
for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased contents of these
glass cleaners ranged from 0 percent to 67 percent. The products with
tested biobased contents of 0 and 1 percent were not considered in
establishing the minimum biobased content for this proposed designated
item. The one product whose tested biobased content was 0 percent was
eliminated from consideration because, according to the results of the
analysis, the product would not be considered a biobased product.
Further, USDA will not establish the minimum biobased content for a
designated item based on products with essentially no biobased content;
that is, in this instance on a product with a tested biobased content
of 1 percent. The biobased content of the remaining five products
ranged from 26 percent to 67 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 23 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content of
26 percent. USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content at a
level that will include all of the products sampled. USDA believes that
it is in the best interest of the preferred procurement program for
minimum biobased contents to be set at levels that will realistically
allow products to possess the necessary performance attributes and
allow them to compete with non-biobased products in performance and
economics. Furthermore, setting the minimum biobased content level
based on the lowest level found among the sampled products will offer
procuring agencies more choices in selecting products to purchase and
will encourage the most widespread usage of biobased products by
procuring agencies.
7. Greases
Eighteen of the 67 biobased greases identified have been tested for
biobased
[[Page 47607]]
content using ASTM D6866. For the five proposed subcategories of
greases, the results obtained and the proposed minimum biobased
contents are discussed in the following paragraphs by proposed grease
subcategory.
Food grade greases. The biobased content was measured for three
food grade greases. The tested biobased contents were 45, 62, and 95
percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for food
grade greases at 42 percent, based on the product with a tested
biobased content of 45 percent. USDA believes that it is in the best
interest of the preferred procurement program for minimum biobased
contents to be set at levels that will realistically allow products to
possess the necessary performance attributes and allow them to compete
with non-biobased products in performance and economics. Setting the
minimum biobased content level based on the lowest level found among
the sampled products will offer procuring agencies more choices in
selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most widespread
usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
Multipurpose greases. The biobased content was measured for three
multipurpose greases. The tested biobased contents were 76, 76, and 76
percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for food
grade greases at 73 percent, based on the tested biobased content of 76
percent for all three multipurpose greases.
Rail track greases. The biobased content was measured for six rail
track greases. The tested biobased contents ranged from 33 percent to
66 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for rail
track greases at 30 percent, based on the two products with a tested
biobased content of 33 percent. The range in biobased contents is due
to formulations necessary to meet seasonal requirements. Because one
would not use a rail track grease formulated for winter use in the
summer (and vice-versa), USDA does not believe it is necessary to
subdivide this item. Instead, USDA believes that it is appropriate to
set a single minimum biobased content and is proposing to set it based
on the lowest tested biobased content. By doing so, USDA believes that
it is setting a minimum biobased content level that will realistically
allow products to possess the necessary performance attributes and
allow them to compete with non-biobased products in performance and
economics, which is in the best interests of this program. Further,
setting the minimum biobased content level based on the lowest level
found among the sampled products will offer procuring agencies more
choices in selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most
widespread usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
Truck greases. The biobased content was measured for three truck
greases. The tested biobased contents were 75, 77, and 77 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for truck
greases at 72 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased
content of 77 percent. USDA believes that the slight difference between
the biobased content of three products tested is insignificant, and
establishing the minimum biobased content for the item based on the
lower tested value offers procurement agents more choice in selecting
truck grease products to purchase.
Greases not elsewhere specified. The biobased content was measured
for four greases that did not fit any of the four specified
subcategories. The tested biobased contents ranged from 78 percent to
96 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for greases
not elsewhere specified at 75 percent, based on the product with a
tested biobased content of 78 percent. Because of the nature of this
subcategory, grease products within it will be formulated to meet a
wide range of demands. Because of the resulting range in product
characteristics, USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content
at a level that will include all of these ``other'' grease products
sampled. USDA believes that it is in the best interest of the preferred
procurement program for minimum biobased contents to be set at levels
that will realistically allow products to possess the necessary
performance attributes and allow these ``other'' grease products to
compete with non-biobased products in performance and economics.
Furthermore, setting the minimum biobased content level based on the
lowest level found among the sampled ``other'' grease products will
offer procuring agencies more choices in selecting products to purchase
and will encourage the most widespread usage of biobased products by
procuring agencies.
8. Dust Suppressants
Five of the 13 biobased dust suppressants identified have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased contents of
these 5 biobased dust suppressants ranged from 69 percent to 100
percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 66 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content of
69 percent. USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content at a
level that will include all of the products sampled, including the
product with 69 percent biobased content, which is the only one of the
products that is formulated specifically as a concentrate to be mixed
with water. USDA believes that it is in the best interest of the
preferred procurement program for minimum biobased contents to be set
at levels that will realistically allow products to possess the
necessary performance attributes and allow them to compete with non-
biobased products in performance and economics. Furthermore, setting
the minimum biobased content level based on the lowest level found
among the sampled products will offer procuring agencies more choices
in selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most
widespread usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
9. Carpet
Nine of the 19 biobased carpet identified have been tested for
biobased content using ASTM D6866. The testing was conducted on the
entire carpet samples (i.e., face and backing). The biobased content of
these nine biobased carpets ranged from 0 percent to 37 percent. The
two products whose tested biobased content was 0 percent was eliminated
from consideration because, according to the results of the analysis,
the product would not be considered a biobased product. The biobased
content of the remaining 7 products ranged from 10 percent to 37
percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 7 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content of 10
percent. For each of the carpet samples tested, the biobased component
of the carpets sampled was the material used as the carpet backing. The
sampled products with a higher biobased content contain similar
biobased materials, but had higher biobased contents because they
simply had a thicker layer of the backing material. Thus, those
products with the lower biobased content are likely to be less costly
and more competitive in markets such as the commercial carpet segment.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content at a level that
will include all of the products sampled. USDA believes that it is in
the best interest of the preferred procurement program for minimum
biobased contents to be set at levels that will realistically allow
[[Page 47608]]
products to possess the necessary performance attributes and allow them
to compete with non-biobased products in performance and economics.
Furthermore, setting the minimum biobased content level based on the
lowest level found among the sampled products also will provide more
products from which procurement officials may choose and will encourage
the most widespread usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
10. Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners
Ten of the 17 biobased carpet and upholstery cleaners identified
have been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased
content of these 10 biobased carpet and upholstery cleaners ranged from
10 percent to 99 percent. Two products, with biobased contents of 10
and 15 percent are characterized by their manufacturers as ``spot
removers.'' USDA did not consider these products in establishing the
minimum biobased content because this designated item is intended to
include those products formulated for use in larger scale cleaning
operations than would be typical for ``spot removers.'' The biobased
content of the eight remaining products ranged from 37 percent to 99
percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 34 percent, based on the product with a biobased content of 37
percent. USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content at a
level that will include all of the products sampled. USDA believes that
it is in the best interest of the preferred procurement program for
minimum biobased contents to be set at levels that will realistically
allow products to possess the necessary performance attributes and
allow them to compete with non-biobased products in performance and
economics. Furthermore, setting the minimum biobased content level
based on the lowest level found among the sampled products will offer
procuring agencies more choices in selecting products to purchase and
will encourage the most widespread usage of biobased products by
procuring agencies.
D. Effective Date for Procurement Preference and Incorporation Into
Specifications
USDA intends for the final rule to take effect thirty (30) days
after publication of the final rule. However, under the terms of the
proposed rule, procuring agencies would have a one-year transition
period, starting from the date of publication of the final rule, before
the procurement preference for biobased products within a designated
item would take effect.
USDA proposes a one-year period before the procurement preferences
would take effect based on an understanding that Federal agencies will
need time to incorporate the preferences into procurement documents and
to revise existing standardized specifications. Section 9002(d) of
FSRIA and section 2902(c) of 7 CFR part 2902 explicitly acknowledge the
latter need for Federal agencies to have sufficient time to revise the
affected specifications to give preference to biobased products when
purchasing the designated items. Procuring agencies will need time to
evaluate the economic and technological feasibility of the available
biobased products for their agency-specific uses and for compliance
with agency-specific requirements, including manufacturers' warranties
for machinery in which the biobased products would be used.
By the time these items are promulgated for designation, Federal
agencies will have had a minimum of 18 months (from when these
designated items were proposed), and much longer considering when the
Guidelines were first proposed and these requirements were first laid
out, to implement these requirements.
For these reasons, USDA proposes that the mandatory preference for
biobased products under the designated items take effect one year after
promulgation of the final rule. The one-year period provides these
agencies with ample time to evaluate the economic and technological
feasibility of biobased products for a specific use and to revise the
specifications accordingly. However, some agencies may be able to
complete these processes more expeditiously, and not all uses will
require extensive analysis or revision of existing specifications.
Although it is allowing up to one year, USDA encourages procuring
agencies to implement the procurement preferences as early as
practicable for procurement actions involving any of the designated
items.
V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information on These USDA-Designated
Items?
Once the item designations in today's proposal become final,
manufacturers and vendors voluntarily may post information on specific
products, including product and contact information, on the USDA
biobased products Web site http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov. USDA will
periodically audit the information displayed on the Web site and, where
questions arise, contact the manufacturer or vendor to verify, correct,
or remove incorrect or out-of-date information. Procuring agencies
should contact the manufacturers and vendors directly to discuss
specific needs and to obtain detailed information on the availability
and prices of biobased products meeting those needs.
By accessing the Web site, agencies will also be able to obtain the
voluntarily-posted information on each product concerning: Relative
price; life cycle costs; hot links directly to a manufacturer's or
vendor's Web site (if available); performance standards (industry,
government, military, ASTM/ISO) that the product has been tested
against; and environmental and public health information from the BEES
analysis or the alternative analysis embedded in the ASTM Standard
D7075, ``Standard Practice for Evaluating and Reporting Environmental
Performance of Biobased Products.''
USDA has linked its Web site to DoD's list of specifications and
standards, which can be used as guidance when procuring products. To
access this list, go to USDA's FB4P Web site and click on the ``Product
Submission'' tab and look for the DoD Specifications link.
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant.'' The Order defines a ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
``(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.''
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866. The
annual economic effect associated with today's proposed rule
[[Page 47609]]
has not been quantified because the information necessary to estimate
the effect does not exist. As was discussed earlier in this preamble,
USDA made extensive efforts to obtain information on the Federal
agencies' usage of the 10 items proposed for designation. These efforts
were largely unsuccessful. Therefore, attempts to determine the
economic impacts of today's proposed rule would necessitate estimating
the anticipated market penetration of biobased products, which would
entail many assumptions and, thus, be of questionable value. Also, the
program allows procuring agencies the option of not purchasing biobased
products if the costs are deemed ``unreasonable.'' Under this program,
the determination of ``unreasonable'' costs will be made by individual
agencies. USDA knows these agencies will consider such factors as
price, life-cycle costs, and environmental benefits in determining
whether the cost of a biobased product is determined to be
``reasonable'' or ``unreasonable.'' However, until the program is
actually implemented by the various agencies, it is impossible to
quantify the impact this option would have on the economic effect of
the rule. Therefore, USDA relied on a qualitative assessment to reach
the judgment that the annual economic effect of the designation of
these 10 items is less than $100 million, and likely to be
substantially less than $100 million. This judgment was based primarily
on the offsetting nature of the program (an increase in biobased
products purchased with a corresponding decrease in petroleum products
purchased) and, secondarily, on the ability of procuring agencies not
to purchase these items if costs are judged unreasonable, which would
reduce the economic effect.
1. Summary of Impacts
Today's proposed rulemaking is expected to have both positive and
negative impacts to individual businesses, including small businesses.
USDA anticipates that the biobased preferred procurement program will
provide additional opportunities for businesses to begin supplying
biobased materials to manufacturers of 2-cycle engine oils, lip care
products, biodegradable films, stationary equipment hydraulic fluids,
biodegradable cutlery, glass cleaners, greases, dust suppressants,
carpets, and carpet and upholstery cleaners and to begin supplying
these products made with biobased materials to Federal agencies and
their contractors. In addition, other businesses, including small
businesses, that do not directly contract with procuring agencies may
be affected positively by the increased demand for these biobased
materials and products. However, other businesses that manufacture and
supply only non-qualifying products and do not offer a biobased
alternative product may experience a decrease in demand for their
products. Thus, today's proposed rule will likely increase the demand
for biobased products, while decreasing the demand for non-qualifying
products. It is anticipated that this will create a largely
``offsetting'' economic impact.
USDA is unable to determine the number of businesses, including
small businesses, that may be adversely affected by today's proposed
rule. If a business currently supplies any of the items proposed for
designation to a procuring agency and those products do not qualify as
biobased products, the proposed rule may reduce that company's ability
to compete for future contracts. However, the proposed rule will not
affect existing purchase orders, nor will it preclude businesses from
modifying their product lines to meet new specifications or
solicitation requirements for these products containing biobased
materials. Thus, many businesses, including small businesses, that
market to Federal agencies and their contractors have the option of
modifying their product lines to meet the new biobased specifications.
2. Summary of Benefits
The designation of these 10 items provides the benefits outlined in
the objectives of section 9002: To increase domestic demand for
biobased products and, thus, for the many agricultural commodities that
can serve as feedstocks for production of biobased products; to spur
development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural
processing and manufacturing in rural communities; and to enhance the
nation's energy security by substituting biobased products for products
derived from imported oil and natural gas. The increased demand for
biobased products will also lead to the substitution of products with a
possibly more benign or beneficial environmental impact, as compared to
the use of non-biobased products. By purchasing these biobased
products, procuring agencies can increase opportunities for all of
these benefits. On a national and regional level, today's proposed rule
can result in expanding and strengthening markets for biobased
materials used in these 10 items. However, because the extent to which
procuring agencies will find the performance and costs of biobased
products acceptable is unknown, it is impossible to quantify the actual
economic effect of today's proposed rule. USDA, however, anticipates
the annual economic effect of the designation of these 10 items to be
substantially below the $100 million threshold. In addition, today's
proposed rule does not do any of the following: Create serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or policy issues arising out
of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in Executive Order 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
USDA evaluated the potential impacts of its proposed designation of
these 10 items to determine whether its actions would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because
the Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program in section
9002 of FSRIA applies only to Federal agencies and their contractors,
small governmental (city, county, etc.) agencies are not affected.
Thus, the proposal, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on small governmental jurisdictions. USDA anticipates
that this program will affect entities, both large and small, that
manufacture or sell biobased products. For example, the designation of
items for preferred procurement will provide additional opportunities
for businesses to manufacture and sell biobased products to Federal
agencies and their contractors. Similar opportunities will be provided
for entities that supply biobased materials to manufacturers.
Conversely, the biobased procurement program may decrease opportunities
for businesses that manufacture or sell non-biobased products or
provide components for the manufacturing of such products. However, the
proposed rule will not affect existing purchase orders and it will not
preclude procuring agencies from continuing to purchase non-biobased
items under
[[Page 47610]]
certain conditions relating to the availability, performance, or cost
of biobased items. Today's proposed rule will also not preclude
businesses from modifying their product lines to meet new
specifications or solicitation requirements for these products
containing biobased materials. Thus, the economic impacts of today's
proposed rule are not expected to be significant.
The intent of section 9002 is largely to stimulate the production
of new biobased products and to energize emerging markets for those
products. Because the program is still in its infancy, however, it is
unknown how many businesses will ultimately be affected. While USDA has
no data on the number of small businesses that may choose to develop
and market products within the 10 items proposed for designation by
today's proposed rulemaking, the number is expected to be small.
Because biobased products represent an emerging market, only a small
percentage of all manufacturers, large or small, are expected to
develop and market biobased products. Thus, the number of small
businesses affected by today's proposed rulemaking is not expected to
be substantial.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, USDA certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
While not a factor relevant to determining whether the proposed
rule will have a significant impact for RFA purposes, USDA has
concluded that the effect of today's proposed rule would be to provide
positive opportunities to businesses engaged in the manufacture of
these biobased products. Purchase and use of these biobased products by
procuring agencies increase demand for these products and result in
private sector development of new technologies, creating business and
employment opportunities that enhance local, regional, and national
economies. Technological innovation associated with the use of biobased
materials can translate into economic growth and increased industry
competitiveness worldwide, thereby, creating opportunities for small
entities.
C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and does not contain
policies that would have implications for these rights.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule does not preempt
State or local laws, is not intended to have retroactive effect, and
does not involve administrative appeals.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Provisions of
this proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States
or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various government levels.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, and tribal
governments, or the private sector. Therefore, a statement under
section 202 of UMRA is not required.
G. Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule Related Notice for 7
CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is
excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. This
program does not directly affect State and local governments.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect
``one or more Indian tribes, * * * the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or * * * the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
Thus, no further action is required under Executive Order 13175.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 through 3520), the information collection under this proposed rule
is currently approved under OMB control number 0503-0011.
J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
The Office of Energy Policy and New Uses is committed to compliance
with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3504
note), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the
public the option of submitting information or transacting business
electronically to the maximum extent possible. USDA is implementing an
electronic information system for posting information voluntarily
submitted by manufacturers or vendors on the products they intend to
offer for preferred procurement under each item designated. For
information pertinent to GPEA compliance related to this rule, please
contact Marvin Duncan at (202) 401-0461.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 2902
Biobased products, Procurement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of
Agriculture proposes to amend 7 CFR chapter XXIX as follows:
CHAPTER XXIX--OFFICE OF ENERGY POLICY AND NEW USES, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
PART 2902--GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATING BIOBASED PRODUCTS FOR FEDERAL
PROCUREMENT
1. The authority citation for part 2902 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8102.
2. Add Sec. Sec. 2902.26 through 2902.35 to subpart B to read as
follows:
Subpart B--Designated Items
Sec.
2902.26 2-Cycle Engine Oils.
2902.27 Lip Care Products.
2902.28 Biodegradable Films.
2902.29 Stationary Equipment Hydraulic Fluids.
2902.30 Biodegradable Cutlery.
2902.31 Glass Cleaners.
2902.32 Greases.
2902.33 Dust Suppressants.
2902.34 Carpets.
2902.35 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners.
Subpart B--Designated Items
* * * * *
Sec. 2902.26 2-Cycle Engine Oils.
(a) Definition. Lubricants formulated to provide clean-burning
lubrication, decreased spark plug fouling, reduced deposit formation,
and reduced engine wear in 2-cycle gasoline engines.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 7
percent and shall be based on the amount of
[[Page 47611]]
qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased 2-cycle engine oils. By that date, Federal agencies
that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications
for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications
require the use of biobased 2-cycle engine oils.
(d) Exemptions. The following applications are exempt for the
preferred procurement requirement for this item:
(1) Military equipment: Product or system designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions.
(2) Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
Sec. 2902.27 Lip Care Products.
(a) Definition. Personal care products formulated to replenish the
moisture and/or prevent drying of the lips.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 82
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased lip care products. By that date, Federal agencies
that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications
for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications
require the use of biobased lip care products.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.28 Biodegradable Films.
(a) Definition. Films used in packaging, wrappings, linings, and
other similar applications and that are capable of meeting ASTM D6400
standard for biodegradability.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 22
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased biodegradable films. By that date, Federal agencies
that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications
for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications
require the use of biobased biodegradable films.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.29 Stationary Equipment Hydraulic Fluids.
(a) Definition. Hydraulic fluids formulated for use as a mechanical
power transmission medium (and to provide wear, rust, and oxidation
protection) in the hydraulic systems of stationary equipment.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 46
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased stationary equipment hydraulic fluids. By that
date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or
reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the
relevant specifications require the use of biobased stationary
equipment hydraulic fluids.
(d) Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content
product. Qualifying biobased products that fall under this item may, in
some cases, overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product:
Re-refined lubricating oils. USDA is requesting that manufacturers of
these qualifying biobased products provide information on the USDA Web
site of qualifying biobased products about the intended uses of the
product, information on whether or not the product contains any
recovered material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and
performance standards against which the product has been tested. This
information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether or not
a qualifying biobased product overlaps with EPA-designated building
insulation and which product should be afforded the preference in
purchasing.
(e) Exemptions. The following applications are exempt for the
preferred procurement requirement for this item:
(1) Military equipment: Product or system designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions.
(2) Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
Sec. 2902.30 Biodegradable Cutlery.
(a) Definition. Hand-held, disposable utensils designed for one-
time use in eating food and that are capable of meeting ASTM D5338
standard for biodegradability.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 33
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased biodegradable cutlery. By that date, Federal
agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of biobased biodegradable cutlery.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.31 Glass Cleaners.
(a) Definition. Cleaning products designed specifically for use in
cleaning glass surfaces, such as windows, mirrors, car windows, and
computer monitors.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 23
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product. If the finished product is to be
diluted before use, the biobased content of the cleaner must be
determined before dilution.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased glass cleaners. By that date, Federal agencies that
have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for
items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications
require the use of biobased glass cleaners.
[[Page 47612]]
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.32 Greases.
(a) Definition. (1) Lubricants composed of oils thickened with
soaps or other thickeners to a semisolid or solid consistency.
(2) Greases for which minimum biobased contents under paragraph (b)
of this section apply are:
(i) Food grade greases. Lubricants that are designed for use on
food-processing equipment as a protective anti-rust film, as a release
agent on gaskets or seals of tank closures, or on machine parts and
equipment in locations in which there is exposure of the lubricated
part to food.
(ii) Multipurpose greases. Lubricants that are designed for general
use.
(iii) Rail track greases. Lubricants that are designed for use on
railroad tracks or heavy crane tracks.
(iv) Truck greases. Lubricants that are designed for use on the
fifth wheel of tractor trailer trucks onto which the semi-trailer rests
and pivots.
(v) Greases not elsewhere specified. Lubricants that meet the
general definition of greases as defined in paragraph (a) of this
section, but are not otherwise covered by paragraphs (b)(1) through (5)
of this section.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content for all
greases shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in
the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product. The applicable minimum biobased
contents are:
(1) Food grade grease--42 percent.
(2) Multipurpose grease--73 percent.
(3) Rail track grease--30 percent.
(4) Truck grease--72 percent.
(5) Greases not elsewhere specified--75 percent.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased greases. By that date, Federal agencies that have
the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items
to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require
the use of biobased greases.
(d) Exemptions. The following applications are exempt for the
preferred procurement requirement for this item:
(1) Military equipment: Product or system designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions.
(2) Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
Sec. 2902.33 Dust Suppressants.
(a) Definition. Products formulated to reduce or eliminate the
spread of dust associated with gravel roads, dirt parking lots, or
similar sources of dust, including products used in equivalent indoor
applications.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 66
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product. If the finished product is to be
diluted before use, the biobased content of the suppressant must be
determined before dilution.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased dust suppressants. By that date, Federal agencies
that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications
for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications
require the use of biobased dust suppressants.
(d) Exemptions. The following applications are exempt for the
preferred procurement requirement for this item:
(1) Military equipment: Product or system designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions.
(2) Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
Sec. 2902.34 Carpets.
(a) Definition. Floor coverings composed of woven fibers, with a
backing.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 7
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased carpet. By that date, Federal agencies that have
the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items
to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require
the use of biobased carpet.
(d) Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content
product. Qualifying biobased products that fall under this item may, in
some cases, overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product:
Carpets (polyester). USDA is requesting that manufacturers of these
qualifying biobased products provide information on the USDA Web site
of qualifying biobased products about the intended uses of the product,
information on whether or not the product contains any recovered
material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and performance
standards against which the product has been tested. This information
will assist Federal agencies in determining whether or not a qualifying
biobased product overlaps with EPA-designated building insulation and
which product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.35 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners.
(a) Definition. Cleaning products formulated specifically for use
in cleaning carpets and upholstery, through a dry or wet process, found
in locations such as houses, cars, and workplaces. Spot cleaners are
not included in this item.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 34
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased carpet and upholstery cleaners. By that date,
Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of biobased carpet and upholstery
cleaners.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Dated: August 10, 2006.
Keith Collins,
Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 06-6920 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-GL-P