[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 206 (Thursday, October 23, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63298-63328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25037]
[[Page 63297]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
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. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 63298]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
7 CFR Part 2902
RIN 0503-AA33
Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement
AGENCY: Departmental Administration, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to
amend the Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal
Procurement, by adding nine sections to designate the following nine
items within which biobased products would be afforded Federal
procurement preference: Chain and cable lubricants; corrosion
preventatives; food cleaners; forming lubricants; gear lubricants;
general purpose household cleaners; industrial cleaners; multipurpose
cleaners; and parts wash solutions. USDA also is proposing minimum
biobased content for each of these items.
DATES: USDA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until
December 22, 2008.
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-AA33.
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-
AA33 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: Shana Love, USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, Room 209A, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20250-0103.
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: Shana Love, USDA, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, Room 209A, Whitten Building,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0103; e-mail:
[email protected]; phone (202) 205-4008. Information regarding the
Federal Procurement of Biobased Products (one part of the BioPreferred
Program) is available on the Internet at http://www.biopreferred.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
B. Items Proposed for Designation
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
D. Compliance 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), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(FCEA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this document as ``section
9002'').
II. Background
Section 9002, as amended by the FCEA of 2008, provides for the
preferred procurement of biobased products by Federal procuring
agencies (referred to hereafter in this FR notice as the ``preferred
procurement program''). The definition of ``procuring agency'' in
section 9002, as amended by the FCEA of 2008, includes both Federal
agencies and ``a person that is a party to a contract with any Federal
agency, with respect to work performed under such a contract.'' Thus,
Federal contractors, as well as Federal agencies, are expressly subject
to the procurement preference provisions of section 9002.
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.
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; that is,
the requirements to purchase biobased products do not apply to such
purchases if they are unrelated to or incidental to the purpose of the
Federal contract. To illustrate, you are awarded a Federal contract to
construct a Federal office building with elevators. The elevators
require hydraulic fluid to operate. Because stationary equipment
hydraulic fluids are an item that has been designated for preferred
procurement, the hydraulic fluid purchased for use in the elevators
would be subject to the requirements of section 9002. In order to
install these elevators, cranes may be used. These cranes require
hydraulic fluid to operate. The hydraulic fluid purchased for the
maintenance of these cranes used in the performance of that contract,
however, is considered to be incidental to the purpose of the Federal
contract. Because it is incidental, it would not be subject to the
requirements of section 9002, even though some of the monies received
under the contract might be used to purchase the hydraulic fluid used
in the cranes.
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
[[Page 63299]]
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(a)(3)(B), as amended by the FCEA of 2008, requires
USDA to provide information to procuring agencies on the availability,
relative price, performance, and environmental and public health
benefits of such items and to recommend where appropriate the minimum
level of biobased content to be contained in the procured products.
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. 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.
Subcategorization. Most of the items USDA is considering for
designation for preferred procurement cover a wide range of products.
For some items, there are groups of products within the item that meet
different markets and uses and/or different performance specifications.
For example, within the designated item ``hand cleaners and
sanitizers,'' some products are required to meet performance
specifications for sanitizing, while other products do not need to meet
these specifications. Where such subgroups exist, USDA intends to
create subcategories. For example, for the item ``hand cleaners and
sanitizers,'' USDA has determined it is reasonable to create a ``hand
cleaner'' subcategory and a ``hand sanitizer'' subcategory. Sanitizing
specifications would be applicable to the latter subcategory, but not
the former. In sum, USDA looks at the products within each item to
evaluate whether there are groups of products within the item that meet
different performance specifications and, where USDA finds this type of
difference, it intends to create subcategories.
For some items, however, USDA may not have sufficient information
at the time of proposal to create subcategories within an item. For
example, USDA may know that there are different performance
specifications that deicing products are required to meet, but it has
only information on one type of deicing product. In such instances,
USDA may either designate the item without creating subcategories
(i.e., defer the creation of subcategories) or designate one
subcategory and defer designation of other subcategories within the
item until additional information is obtained.
Within today's proposed rule, USDA is not proposing subcategories
for any of the nine items being proposed for designation, but is
requesting specific comments on the appropriateness of creating
subcategories within several items.
Minimum Biobased Contents. The minimum biobased contents being
proposed with today's rule are based on products for which USDA has
biobased content test data. In addition to considering the biobased
content test data for each item, USDA also considers other factors
including product performance information and the range, groupings, and
breaks in the biobased content test data array. Consideration of this
information allows USDA to establish minimum biobased contents on a
broad set of factors to assist the Federal procurement community in its
decisions to purchase biobased products.
USDA makes every effort to obtain biobased content test data on
multiple products within each item. For most designated items, USDA has
biobased content test data on more than one product within a designated
item. However, USDA must rely on biobased product manufacturers to
voluntarily submit product information and, in some cases, USDA has
been able to obtain biobased content data for only a single product
within a designated item. As USDA obtains additional data on the
biobased contents for products within these designated items, USDA will
evaluate whether the minimum biobased content for a designated item
will be revised.
USDA anticipates that the minimum biobased content of an item that
is based on a single product is more likely to change as additional
products within that item are identified and tested. In today's
proposed rule, none of the minimum biobased contents for the designated
items are based on a single tested product.
Where USDA receives additional information on biobased content for
products within these proposed items during the public comment period,
USDA will take that information into consideration when establishing
the minimum biobased content when the items are designated in the final
rulemaking.
Overlap with EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline program for
recovered content products under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Section 6002. Some of the products that are biobased items
designated for preferred procurement under the preferred procurement
program may also be items the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
designated under the EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG)
for Products Containing Recovered Materials. 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 as identified in 7 CFR
Sec. 2902.2. In situations where it believes there may be an overlap,
USDA is asking manufacturers of qualifying biobased products to provide
additional product and performance information to Federal agencies to
assist them in determining whether the biobased products in question
are, or are not, the same products for the same uses as the recovered
content products. As this information becomes available, USDA will
place it on the BioPreferred Web site with its catalog of qualifying
biobased products.
In cases where USDA believes an overlap with EPA-designated
recovered content products may occur, manufacturers are being asked to
indicate 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 are being asked to provide other types of information,
such as whether the product contains fossil energy-based components
(including petroleum, coal, and natural gas) 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 health measures and life-cycle costs
(the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES)
analysis or ASTM Standard D7075,''Standard Practice for Evaluating and
Reporting Environmental Performance of Biobased Products,'' for
evaluating and reporting on environmental performance of biobased
products). Such information will permit agencies to determine whether
or not an overlap occurs. Detailed information on the BEES analytical
tool can be found on the Web site http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.html. Summary information on ASTM Standard D7075, and
other ASTM standards, can be
[[Page 63300]]
found on ASTM's Web site at http://www.astm.org.
Section 6002 of RCRA requires a procuring agency procuring an item
designated by EPA generally to procure such items composed of the
highest percentage of recovered materials content practicable. However,
a procuring agency may decide not to procure such an item based on a
determination that the item fails to meet the reasonable performance
standards or specifications of the procuring agency. An item with
recovered materials content may not meet reasonable performance
standards or specifications, for example, if the use of the item with
recovered materials content would jeopardize the intended end use of
the item.
Where a biobased item is used for the same purposes and to meet the
same Federal agency performance 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 because ``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 a Federal agency's certain environmental or health
performance 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.
This proposed rule designates one item for preferred procurement
for which there may be overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content
product. This item is ``gear lubricants,'' which, depending on how they
are used, may overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product
``Re-refined Lubricating Oils.'' EPA provides recovered materials
content recommendations for this recovered content product in a
Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN I). The RMAN recommendations
for this CPG product can be found by accessing EPA's Web site http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure/products.htm and then clicking on
the appropriate product name.
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 Guideline 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.
Procuring agencies should note that not all biobased products are
``environmentally preferable.'' For example, unless cleaning products
contain no or reduced levels of metals and toxic and hazardous
constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life, the environment,
and/or workers. Household cleaning products that are formulated to be
disinfectants are required, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to be registered with EPA and must meet
specific labeling requirements warning of the potential risks
associated with misuse of such products. When purchasing
environmentally preferable cleaning products, many Federal agencies
specify that products must meet Green Seal standards \1\ for
institutional cleaning products or that products must 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, alkyl
phenol ethoxylates, ethylene glycol ethers, and volatile organic
compounds. In addition, both require that cleaning products have
neutral or less caustic pH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reference to these standards does not represent or imply any
endorsement by USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 preferred
procurement program 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 D7075. Therefore, USDA encourages Federal
procurement agencies to examine all available information on the
environmental and human health effects of products when making their
purchasing decisions.
Other Preferred Procurement Programs. Federal procurement officials
should also note that biobased products may be available for purchase
by Federal agencies through the AbilityOne Program (formerly known as
the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) program). Under this program, members of
organizations including the National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and
the National Institute for the Severely Handicapped (NISH) offer
products and services for preferred procurement by Federal agencies. A
search of the AbilityOne Program's JWOD online catalog (http://www.jwodcatalog.com) indicated that three of the items being proposed
today (``general purpose household cleaners'', ``industrial cleaners'',
and ``multipurpose cleaners'') are available through the AbilityOne
Program. While none of the specific products within these items are
identified in the JWOD online catalog as being biobased products, there
currently are biobased cleaning products available from at least one
NIB affiliate. Also, because additional categories of products are
frequently added to the AbilityOne Program, it is possible that
biobased products within other items being proposed for designation
today may be available through the AbilityOne Program in the future.
Procurement of biobased products through the AbilityOne Program would
further the objectives of both the AbilityOne Program and the preferred
procurement program.
Interagency Council. USDA has created, and is chairing, an
``interagency council'' with membership selected from among Federal
stakeholders to the preferred procurement program. 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
[[Page 63301]]
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.
Future Designations. In making future designations, USDA will
continue to conduct market searches to identify manufacturers of
biobased products within items. USDA will then contact the identified
manufacturers to solicit samples of their products for voluntary
submission for biobased content testing and for the BEES analytical
tool. Based on these results, USDA will then propose new items for
designation for preferred procurement.
As stated in the preamble to the first six items designated for
preferred procurement (71 FR 13686, March 16, 2006), USDA plans to
identify approximately 10 items in each future rulemaking. USDA has
developed a preliminary list of items for future designation. This list
is available on the BioPreferred Web site. While this list presents an
initial prioritization of items for designation, USDA cannot identify
with certainty which items will be presented in each of the future
rulemakings. Items may be added or dropped and the information
necessary to designate an item may take more time to obtain than an
item lower on the prioritization list.
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule
USDA is proposing to designate the following nine items for
preferred procurement: Chain and cable lubricants; corrosion
preventatives; food cleaners; forming lubricants; gear lubricants;
general purpose household cleaners; industrial cleaners; multipurpose
cleaners; and parts wash solutions. 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 rule, 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 designated items. Information on the availability, relative
price, performance, and environmental and public health benefits of
individual products within each of these 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 make their names and
other contact information available for the BioPreferred Web site.
Warranties. Some of the items, including subcategories, being
proposed for designation today may affect maintenance warranties. As
time and resources allow, USDA will work with original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) on addressing any effect the use of biobased
products may have on their maintenance warranties. At this time,
however, USDA does not have information available as to whether or not
OEMs will state that the use of these products will void their
maintenance warranties. This does not mean that use of biobased
products will void warranties, only that USDA does not currently have
such information. USDA encourages manufacturers of biobased products to
test their products against all relevant standards, including those
that affect warranties, and to work with OEMs to ensure that biobased
products will not void maintenance warranties when used. Whenever
manufacturers of biobased products find that existing performance
standards for maintenance warranties are not relevant or appropriate
for biobased products, USDA is willing to assist them 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, in spite
of these efforts, there is insufficient information regarding the use
of a biobased product and its effect of 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 the BioPreferred Web site.
Additional Information. USDA is working with manufacturers and
vendors to make all relevant product and manufacturer contact
information available on the BioPreferred 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.biopreferred.gov.
Comments. USDA invites comment on the proposed designation of these
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. One item, ``gear lubricants,'' may overlap with one of the
products designated under EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline 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 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.
2. 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 any of 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.
3. 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 BioPreferred 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
[[Page 63302]]
environmental and human health attributes you describe.
4. Several items (i.e., ``corrosion preventatives,'' ``industrial
cleaners,'' and ``multipurpose cleaners'') have wide ranges of tested
biobased contents. For the reasons discussed later in this preamble,
USDA is proposing minimum biobased content levels for these items that
would allow a high percentage of the tested products to be eligible for
preferred procurement. USDA welcomes comments on the appropriateness of
the proposed minimum biobased contents for these items and whether
there are potential subcategories within the items that should be
considered.
5. USDA considered combining the proposed items ``gear
lubricants,'' ``chain and cable lubricants,'' and ``forming
lubricants'' into a single designated item with multiple subcategories.
The decision to propose the items separately was based largely on the
differences in functional performance between the items. While the
basic purpose of products within each of these items is to provide
lubrication, the applications and the conditions under which they
perform are very different. USDA requests comments from procuring
agencies and manufacturers of products within these items specifically
addressing the advantages and disadvantages of these items being
designated separately versus combined into a single item with
subcategories.
All comments should be submitted as directed in the ADDRESSES
section above.
To assist you in developing your comments, the background
information used in proposing these items for designation has been
assembled in a technical support document, ``Technical Support for
Proposed Rule--Round 5 Designated Items,'' which is available on the
BioPreferred Web site. The technical support document can be located by
clicking on the Proposed and Final Regulations link on the left side of
the BioPreferred Web site's home page (http://www.biopreferred.gov). At
the BioPreferred Web site, click on the Proposed and Final Regulations
link on the left side of the page. At the next screen, click on the
Supporting Documentation link under Round 5 Designated Items under the
Proposed Regulations section. This will bring you to the link to the
technical support document.
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 Bio organization) 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. 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, which includes human health as one of its
components, is a ``cradle-to-grave'' assessment of a product. In it,
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 E917, ``Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs
of Buildings and Building Systems,'' 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.
The environmental performance results are reported as both an
impact value and as an environmental performance score for 12 different
environmental impact areas:
Acidification,
Criteria pollutants,
Ecological toxicity,
Eutrophication,
Fossil fuel depletion,
Global warming,
Habitat alteration,
Human health,
Indoor air quality,
Ozone depletion,
Smog, and
Water intake.
For each environmental impact area, BEES estimates the impact a
product has in an area using certain units to standardize impacts. For
example, acidification is measured as ``millimoles of hydrogen
equivalents,'' while eutrophication is measured as ``grams of nitrogen
equivalents.'' Thus, for acidification, BEES estimates how many
millimoles of hydrogen equivalents and how many grams of nitrogen
equivalents a product generates as the result of its production and
use. These values are referred to as ``impact values'' and are
calculated on a per functional unit basis. For example, the impact
value for eutrophication for a chain and cable lubricant product was
estimated to be 105 grams of nitrogen equivalents for one gallon of
product (the functional unit).
The impact values for a product are then used to determine the
environmental performance scores of a product within each of the 12
environmental impact areas. The
[[Page 63303]]
environmental performance score is a measure of the share a product
contributes towards the annual per capita U.S. environmental impact in
one of the 12 environmental impact areas. For example, the global
warming impact value of a chain and cable lubricant product was
estimated to be 9,710 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents. The total
amount of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted in the United States in
one year is divided by the U.S. population to yield a ``global warming
per person'' value. The product's global warming impact value is then
divided by the ``global warming per person'' value to derive the
product's share of global warming. Specifically, for this example, the
global warming environmental performance score is estimated to be
0.0061. That is, every one gallon of this chain and cable lubricant is
estimated to contribute 0.0061 percent to the global warming per person
value.
For both the impact values and the environmental performance
scores, the BEES analysis uses 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 within an
item 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 includes reference to a time dimension to
account for the frequency of product replacement. The functional unit
also accounts 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 rule
can be found in the technical support document for this proposed rule.
As discussed above, the BEES analysis includes information on the
environmental performance, human health impacts, and economic
performance. In addition, ASTM Standard D7075, which manufacturers may
use in lieu of the BEES analytical tool, provides similar information.
USDA is working with manufacturers and vendors to make this information
available on the BioPreferred Web site 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 make this
information, including manufacturer contact information, available on
the BioPreferred Web site in order to then 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 has also provided a link
on the BioPreferred Web site to the Defense Standardization Program and
to General Services Administration (GSA)-related standards lists used
as guidance when procuring products. These lists can be accessed
through the ``Selling to the Federal Government'' link on the
BioPreferred Web site.
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 information on
industry standard test methods and performance standards that
manufacturers are using to evaluate the functional performance of their
products. (Test methods are procedures used to provide information on a
certain attribute of a product. For example, a test method might
determine how many bacteria are killed. Performance standards identify
the level at which a product must perform in order for it to be
``acceptable'' to the entity that set the performance standard. For
example, a performance standard might require that a certain percentage
(e.g., 95 percent) of the bacteria must be killed through the use of
the product.) The primary source of information on these test methods
and performance standards are manufacturers of biobased products within
these items. Additional test methods and performance standards are also
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, performance
standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance
associated with the functional aspects of products identified during
the development of this Federal Register notice for these items.
While this process identifies many of the relevant test methods and
standards, USDA recognizes that those identified herein do not
represent all of the methods and standards 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 any 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 BioPreferred Web site.
In gathering information relevant to the analyses discussed above
for this proposed rule, USDA has made extensive efforts to contact and
request information and product samples within the items proposed for
designation. For product information, USDA has attempted to contact
representatives of the manufacturers of biobased products identified by
the preferred procurement program. For product samples on which to
conduct biobased content tests and BEES analysis, USDA has attempted to
obtain samples and BEES input information for at least five different
suppliers of products within each item in today's proposed rule.
However, because the submission of information and samples 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. The data presented are all the data that were submitted in
response to USDA requests for information from manufacturers of the
products within the 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 rule.
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
[[Page 63304]]
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 it is
appropriate to designate an item or subcategory for preferred
procurement even when there is only a single product with a single
supplier. However, USDA has also determined that in such situations it
is appropriate to defer the effective preferred procurement date until
such time that more than one supplier is identified in order to provide
choice to procuring agencies. 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 BioPreferred Web site at http://www.biopreferred.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 manufacturers. These evaluations begin by look at the cost,
performance, and availability of products within each item. 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 is developed to designate the items within that group. USDA
points out that the list of items may change, with items being added or
dropped, and that 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 rule, USDA is proposing to designate the
following items for the preferred procurement program: Chain and cable
lubricants; corrosion preventatives; food cleaners; forming lubricants;
gear lubricants; general purpose household cleaners; industrial
cleaners; multipurpose cleaners; and parts wash solutions. USDA has
determined that each of these proposed 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 the 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.
Overlap with EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline program for
recovered content products. In today's proposed rule, one item may
overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product ``Re-refined
Lubricating Oils.'' This item is ``gear lubricants.'' For this item,
USDA is requesting that information on the qualifying biobased ``gear
lubricants'' be made available by their manufacturers to assist Federal
agencies in determining if an overlap exists between ``gear
lubricants'' and ``Re-refined Lubricating Oils'' (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 BioPreferred Web site.
Exemptions. As explained in the May 14, 2008 Federal Register
notice (73 FR 27928) promulgating the Round 2 designated items, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department
of Defense (DoD) are exempt from the procurement preference
requirements that would be afforded to the items contained in today's
proposed rule with respect to products used in space applications and
combat and combat-related applications, respectively. In other words,
they would apply to operations underlying NASA's and DoD's mission,
such as janitorial services contracts, but not to uses on the space
shuttle and military equipment. These ``blanket'' exemptions are
contained in subpart A of part 2902. Therefore, today's proposed rule
would not apply to NASA and DoD, as provided in subpart A of part 2902.
Although each item in today's proposed rule would be exempt from
the procurement preference requirement, this exemption does not extend
to contractors performing work for NASA or DoD other than direct
maintenance and support of the space shuttle and combat equipment. 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.
USDA points out that it is not the intent of these exemptions to
imply that biobased products are inferior to non-biobased products. If
manufacturers of biobased products can meet the concerns of these two
agencies, USDA is willing to reconsider such exemptions on an item-by-
item basis.
Each of the proposed designated items are discussed in the
following sections.
1. Chain and Cable Lubricants
Chain and cable lubricants are products designed to provide
lubrication for such applications as bar and roller chains, sprockets,
and wire
[[Page 63305]]
ropes and cables. The products may also be designed to prevent rust and
corrosion in these applications.
USDA identified 20 different manufacturers producing 37 individual
biobased chain and cable lubricant products. These 20 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased chain and cable
lubricants, merely those identified during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that
these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers
and stakeholders identified two test methods (as shown below) used in
evaluating products within this item. While there may be additional
test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications,
and other measures of performance, applicable to products within this
item, the two test methods identified by manufacturers of products
within this item are:
Test Methods
Shake Flask Test (CG-2000) used by the lubricant industry
to evaluate biodegradability (Environmental Protection Agency
560/6-82-003); and
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (Environmental
Protection Agency 600/4-90-027).
USDA contacted procurement officials with various procuring
agencies including the GSA, 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 chain and cable
lubricants and products within the other eight items proposed for
designation today. Communications with these officials led to the
conclusion that obtaining credible current usage statistics and
specific potential markets within the Federal government for biobased
products within the 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. Using terms that best match the items in
today's proposed rule, USDA queried the GSA database for Federal
purchases of products within today's proposed items. The results
indicate purchases of products within items in today's proposed rule.
The results of this inquiry can be found in the technical support
document for this proposed rule. 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 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 proposed rule. Therefore, USDA has been unable to
obtain data on the amount of chain and cable lubricants purchased by
procuring agencies. However, Federal agencies perform, or procure
contract services to perform, activities, such as maintenance, clean-
up, and tree removal, in which chain and cable lubricants are used. For
example, although quantities were not obtained, the National Park
Service is known to be using biobased chain and cable lubricants at
some of its parks. Thus, there is a need for chain and cable
lubricants. Designation of ``chain and cable lubricants'' 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 chain and cable lubricants was performed
for three of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact
values for these three lubricants are presented in Table 1a. The
environmental performance scores are presented in Table 1b and in
Figure 1.
Table 1a--Impact Values for Chain and Cable Lubricants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B Sample C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification...................... millimoles of hydrogen ion 7,210 6,470 5,130
equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants............ micro Disability-Adjusted 0.532 0.467 0.840
Life Years.
Ecological Toxicity................ grams of 2,4-dichloro- 77.1 69.7 1,950
phenoxy-acetic acid.
Eutrophication..................... grams of nitrogen 105 94.6 246
equivalent.
Fossil Fuel Depletion.............. megajoules of surplus 43.6 39.9 83.6
energy.
Global Warming..................... grams of carbon dioxide 9,710 8,660 29,500
equivalents.
Habitat Alteration................. threatened and endangered 0 0 0
species count.
Human Health....................... grams of toluene equivalent 61,500 54,800 316,000
Indoor Air......................... grams of total volatile 0 0 0
organic compounds.
Ozone Depletion.................... grams of chloroflouro- 1.15E-07 9.69E-08 1.30E-04
carbon-11 equivalents.
Smog............................... grams of nitrogen oxide 124 112 95.9
equivalents.
Water Intake....................... liters of water............ 1,430 1,290 6,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit...............................................1 gallon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1b--Environmental Performance Scores for Chain and Cable Lubricants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B Sample C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Environmental Performance Score \1\....................... 0.0674 0.0606 0.4202
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).......................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................................ 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................................... 0.0104 0.0094 0.2630
Eutrophication (5%)......................................... 0.0272 0.0246 0.0640
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................................. 0.0062 0.0056 0.0118
Global Warming (16%)........................................ 0.0061 0.0054 0.0184
Habitat Alteration (16%).................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................................... 0.0043 0.0038 0.0219
[[Page 63306]]
Indoor Air (11%)............................................ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................................ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................................... 0.0049 0.0044 0.0038
Water Intake (3%)........................................... 0.0081 0.0073 0.0370
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) \2\................. 10.17 13.78 20.20
-----------------------------------------------
First Cost.................................................. 10.17 13.78 20.20
Future Cost (3.9%).......................................... (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit................................................. 1 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.000
As seen in Table 1b, for the analyzed chain and cable lubricants,
the total environmental performance score ranges from 0.0606 to 0.4202
points per gallon of product and the life-cycle costs range from $10.17
to $20.20 (present value dollars) per gallon of product.
When evaluating the environmental performance scores presented in
Table 1b, 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 1b and the
scores presented in tables for other proposed designated items are not
meaningful. On the other hand, one can compare the impact values
reported in Table 1a with those in the other, corresponding impact
value tables. But such a comparison would only be useful if the
compared products would be used as substitutes for each other.
The numbers in parentheses following each of the 12 environmental
impacts listed in the tables presenting the environmental performance
scores in this preamble indicate weighting factors. The weighting
factors represent the relative importance of the 12 environmental
parameters, including human health impacts, which contribute to the
BEES environmental performance score. They are derived from lists of
the relative importance of these parameters developed by the EPA
[[Page 63307]]
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.
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 2006 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 rule can be
found at http://www.biopreferred.gov.
2. Corrosion Preventatives
Corrosion preventatives are products used to prevent the
deterioration (corrosion) of metals.
USDA identified 15 different manufacturers producing 97 individual
biobased corrosion preventatives products. These 15 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased corrosion
preventatives, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition,
manufacturers and stakeholders identified several test methods and one
performance standard used in evaluating products within this item.
While there may be additional test methods, as well as performance
standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance,
applicable to products within this item, the test methods and
performance standard identified by manufacturers of products within
this item, are:
Test Methods
ASTM D1735, ``Standard Practice for Testing Water
Resistance of Coatings Using Water Fog Apparatus;''
ASTM D1748, ``Standard Test Method for Rust Protection by
Metal Preservatives in the Humidity Cabinet;''
ASTM D445, ``Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity
of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of Dynamic
Viscosity);''
ASTM D92, ``Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points
by Cleveland Open Cup Tester;'' and
ASTM D97, ``Standard Test Method for Pour Point of
Petroleum Products.''
Performance Standards
National Association of Corrosion Engineers
TM0374-2001, Laboratory Screening Tests to Determine the
Ability of Scale Inhibitors to Prevent the Precipitation of Calcium
Sulfate and Calcium Carbonate from Solution (for Oil and Gas Production
Systems).
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government using the procedure described in
the section on ``Chain and Cable Lubricants''. These attempts were
largely unsuccessful. However, various Federal agencies procure
corrosion preventatives, or procure contract services such as
maintenance services, that use corrosion preventatives. Thus, they have
a need for corrosion preventatives. Designation of ``corrosive
preventatives'' 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 corrosion preventatives was performed for two of
the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for
these two corrosion preventatives are presented in Table 2a. The
environmental performance scores are presented in Table 2b and in
Figure 2.
Table 2a--Impact Values for Corrosion Preventatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification.............................. millimoles of hydrogen ion 13,300 26,000
equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants.................... micro Disability-Adjusted Life 1.79 2.18
Years.
Ecological Toxicity........................ grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy- 141 291
acetic acid.
Eutrophication............................. grams of nitrogen equivalent....... 120 360
Fossil Fuel Depletion...................... megajoules of surplus energy....... 652 301
Global Warming............................. grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 19,900 37,500
Habitat Alteration......................... threatened and endangered species 0 0
count.
Human Health............................... grams of toluene equivalent........ 559,000 2.36E+07
Indoor Air................................. grams of total volatile organic 0 0
compounds.
Ozone Depletion............................ grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 1.98E-06 1.88E-05
equivalents.
Smog....................................... grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 245 454
Water Intake............................... liters of water.................... 1,570 4,870
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit............................ 5 gallons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2b--Environmental Performance Scores for Corrosion Preventatives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Environmental Performance Score 0.2129 0.2684
\1\....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).................. 0 0
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)........ 0.0006 0.0007
Ecological Toxicity (11%)........... 0.0190 0.0389
Eutrophication (5%)................. 0.0312 0.0937
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).......... 0.0924 0.0431
Global Warming (16%)................ 0.0124 0.0236
Habitat Alteration (16%)............ 0 0
Human Health (11%).................. 0.0387 0.0228
Indoor Air (11%).................... 0 0
[[Page 63308]]
Ozone Depletion (5%)................ 0 0
Smog (6%)........................... 0.0097 0.0180
Water Intake (3%)................... 0.0089 0.0276
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs 114.75 77.09
($)) \2\...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Cost.......................... 114.75 77.09
-------------------------------
Future Cost (3.9%).................. (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit......................... 5 gallons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.001
As seen in Table 2b, the total environmental performance scores for
the two corrosion preventatives analyzed are 0.2194 and 0.2684 per five
gallons of product and the respective life-cycle costs are $114.75 and
$77.09 (present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
3. Food Cleaners
Food cleaners are anti-microbial products used to clean the outer
layer of various food products, such as fruits, vegetables, and meats.
USDA identified 11 different manufacturers producing 15 individual
biobased food cleaner products. These 11 manufacturers do not
necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased food cleaners, merely
those identified during USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified several test methods, one performance standard,
and one other measure of performance used in evaluating products within
this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as
performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of
performance applicable to products within this item, those identified
by manufacturers of products within this item are:
[[Page 63309]]
Test Methods
Federal Test Method Standard 536A, Soap and soap
products (including synthetic detergents) sampling and testing.
Performance Standards
Boeing D6-7127, Cleaning Interiors of Commercial
Transport Aircraft; and
South Coast Air Quality Management District, certification
as a Clean Air Solvent.
Product Certifications and Other Measures
U.S. Navy Navsea 6840--U.S. Navy 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 using the procedure described in
the section on ``Chain and Cable Lubricants.'' These attempts were
largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies procure such products
or contract for food preparation services that use such products. Thus,
there is a need for food cleaners. Designation of biobased ``food
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 food cleaners was performed for one of the
products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for this
food cleaner are presented in Table 3a. The environmental performance
scores are presented in Table 3b and in Figure 3.
Table 3a--Impact Values for Food Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification.................. millimoles of hydrogen 81.8
ion equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants........ micro Disability- 0.0216
Adjusted Life Years.
Ecological Toxicity............ grams of 2,4-dichloro- 0.774
phenoxy-acetic acid.
Eutrophication................. grams of nitrogen 0.104
equivalent.
Fossil Fuel Depletion.......... megajoules of surplus 2.43
energy.
Global Warming................. grams of carbon dioxide 148
equivalents.
Habitat Alteration............. threatened and 0
endangered species
count.
Human Health................... grams of toluene 2,110
equivalent.
Indoor Air..................... grams of total volatile 0
organic compounds.
Ozone Depletion................ grams of chloroflouro- 7.98E-08
carbon-11 equivalents.
Smog........................... grams of nitrogen oxide 1.09
equivalents.
Water Intake................... liters of water........ 4.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit................ ....................... 1 gallon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3b--Environmental Performance Scores for Food Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Environmental Performance Score \1\............... 0.0006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).................................. 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)........................ 0.0000
Ecological Toxicity (11%)........................... 0.0001
Eutrophication (5%)................................. 0.0000
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).......................... 0.0003
Global Warming (16%)................................ 0.0001
Habitat Alteration (16%)............................ 0.0000
Human Health (11%).................................. 0.0001
Indoor Air (11%).................................... 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)................................ 0.0000
Smog (6%)........................................... 0.0000
Water Intake (3%)................................... 0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) \2\......... 4.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Cost.......................................... 4.00
Future Cost (3.9%).................................. (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit......................................... Gallon of food
cleaner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
[[Page 63310]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.002
As seen in Table 3b, the total environmental performance score and
the life-cycle costs of the food cleaner analyzed are, respectively,
0.0006 points per gallon of product and $4.00 (present value dollars)
per gallon of product.
4. Forming Lubricants
Forming lubricants are products designed to provide lubricity
during metalworking applications that are performed under extreme
pressure conditions. Such applications include tube bending, stretch
forming, press braking, and swaging.
USDA identified three different manufacturers producing 13
individual biobased forming lubricant products. These three
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
forming lubricants, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition,
manufacturers and stakeholders identified two test methods (as shown
below) used in evaluating products within this item. While there may be
additional test methods, as well as performance standards, product
certifications, and other measures of performance applicable to
products within this item, those identified by manufacturers of
products within this item are:
Test Methods
Boeing BAC 5001-4 Flareless Tube End Fabrication;
and
Testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (EPA 560/6-82-003).
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government using the procedure described in
the section on ``Chain and Cable Lubricants.'' These attempts were
largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies own and operate
metalworking machinery that operates under extreme pressure. In
addition, Federal agencies contract for services involving the use of
similar equipment. Thus, there is a need for forming lubricants.
Designation of ``forming lubricants'' 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 forming lubricants was performed for one of the
products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for this
forming lubricant are presented in Table 4a. The environmental
performance scores are presented in Table 4b and in Figure 4.
Table 4a--Impact Values for Forming Lubricants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification.................. millimoles of hydrogen 1,320
ion equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants........ micro Disability- 0.267
Adjusted Life Years.
Ecological Toxicity............ grams of 2,4-dichloro- 32.7
phenoxyacetic acid.
Eutrophication................. grams of nitrogen 11.3
equivalent.
Fossil Fuel Depletion.......... megajoules of surplus 76.0
energy.
[[Page 63311]]
Global Warming................. grams of carbon dioxide 4,450
equivalents.
Habitat Alteration............. threatened and 0
endangered species
count.
Human Health................... grams of toluene 60,000
equivalent.
Indoor Air..................... grams of total volatile 0
organic compounds.
Ozone Depletion................ grams of chloroflouro- 2.59E-05
carbon-11 equivalents.
Smog........................... grams of nitrogen oxide 25.6
equivalents.
Water Intake................... liters of water........ 164
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit......................................... 1 gallon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4b--Environmental Performance Scores for Forming Lubricants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Environmental Performance Score \1\............... 0.0271
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).................................. 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)........................ 0.0001
Ecological Toxicity (11%)........................... 0.0044
Eutrophication (5%)................................. 0.0029
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).......................... 0.0108
Global Warming (16%)................................ 0.0028
Habitat Alteration (16%)............................ 0.0000
Human Health (11%).................................. 0.0042
Indoor Air (11%).................................... 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)................................ 0.0000
Smog (6%)........................................... 0.0010
Water Intake (3%)................................... 0.0009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) \2\......... 18.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Cost.......................................... 18.50
Future Cost (3.9%).................................. (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit......................................... (\4\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\4\ One gallon of forming lubricant.
As seen in Table 4b, the total environmental performance score and
the life-cycle cost of the submitted forming lubricant are,
respectively, 0.0271 points per gallon of product and $18.50 (present
value dollars) per gallon of product.
[[Page 63312]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.003
5. Gear Lubricants
Gear lubricants are substances, such as greases and oils, which
reduce friction when applied to a toothed machine part (such as a wheel
or cylinder) that meshes with another toothed part to transmit motion
or to change speed or direction. Unlike penetrating lubricants, which
would be applied to frozen gears to loosen them, gear lubricants are
designed to be applied to functional gears to reduce friction while in
operation.
Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the EPA-
designated recovered content product: ``Re-refined Lubricating Oils''.
USDA identified nine different manufacturers producing 24
individual biobased gear lubricant products. These nine manufacturers
do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased gear
lubricants, merely those identified during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that
these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers
and stakeholders identified test methods, performance standards, and
other measures of performance used in evaluating the performance of
products within this item. While there may be additional test methods,
as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other
measures of performance applicable to products within this item, those
identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
ASTM D1404/D1404M, ``Standard Test Method for Estimation
of Deleterious Particles for Lubricating Grease;''
ASTM D2270, ``Standard Practice for Calculating Viscosity
Index from Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 [deg]C;''
ASTM D2619, ``Standard Test Method for Hydrolytic
Stability of Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle Method);''
ASTM D2711, ``Standard Test Method for Demulsibility
Characteristics of Lubricating Oils;''
ASTM D445, ``Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity
of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of Dynamic
Viscosity);''
ASTM D5864, ``Standard Test Method for Determining Aerobic
Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or Their Components;''
ASTM D665, ``Standard Test Method for Rust-Preventing
Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of Water;''
ASTM D892, ``Standard Test Method for Foaming
Characteristics of Lubricating Oils;''
ASTM D92, ``Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points
by Cleveland Open Cup Tester;''
ASTM D97, ``Standard Test Method for Pour Point of
Petroleum Products;''
ASTM D974, ``Standard Test Method for Acid and Base Number
by Color-Indicator Titration;''
ASTM D2266, ``Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive
Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method);''
Testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (EPA 560/6-82-003);
International Organization for Standardization
ISO 150--Specifies the requirements and the corresponding
methods of test for raw, refined, and boiled linseed oils for paints
and varnishes;
DIN 51517--Lubricants--Lubricating oils--Part 1:
Lubricating oils C Requirements;
FGZ (DIN51354), Gear wheel twisting/tension testing
machine for lubricants;
ISO 46--oil viscosity grade;
SAE 30--viscosity grade;
[[Page 63313]]
SAE GearGrade 80W90--viscosity grade; and
ISO 90--oil viscosity grade.
Performance Standards
American Petroleum Institute API GL-3--Lubricant
with light EP effect for transmissions and non-hypoid gear drives;
American Petroleum Institute API GL-4--Generally
equivalent to military specification MIL-L-2105 for manual
transmissions and spiral bevel gears engaged in moderate service (API
GL-4 rates a gears lubricant's performance);
AGMA 2-8A, R&O and EP gear lubes grades;
ANSI/AGMA 9005-E02, Industrial Gear Lubricant; and
DB s1.53.101, Meets or exceeds requirements of David Brown
performance requirement.
Product Certifications and Other Measures
American Petroleum Institute API GL-1--Designates
the type of service characteristics of automotive spiral-bevel and worm
gear axles as well as some manually-operated transmissions operating
under such mild conditions of low unit pressures and sliding velocities
that straight mineral oil can be used satisfactorily; and
American Petroleum Institute API GL-2--Designates
the type of service characteristics of automotive type worm gear axles
operating under such conditions of load, temperature, and sliding
velocities that lubricants satisfactory for API GL-1 service will not
suffice (obsolete).
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government using the procedure described in
the section on ``Chain and Cable Lubricants.'' These attempts were
largely unsuccessful. However, many Federal agencies own or operate
machinery, or procure contract services that require the use of
machinery, that require gear lubricants. When EPA researched its
designation of re-refined lubricating oils, including gear oil, the
Defense Logistic Agency informed EPA that it had specifications for,
and sold, gear oils. Thus, there is a need for gear lubricants.
Designation of biobased ``gear lubricants'' 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 gear lubricants was performed for two of
the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for
these two gear lubricants are presented in Table 5a. The environmental
performance scores are presented in Table 5b and in Figure 5.
Table 5a--Impact Values for Gear Lubricants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification.............................. millimoles of hydrogen ion 25,000 10,200
equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants.................... micro Disability-Adjusted Life 2.79 2.96
Years.
Ecological Toxicity........................ grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy- 242 287
acetic acid.
Eutrophication............................. grams of nitrogen equivalent....... 308 47.0
Fossil Fuel Depletion...................... megajoules of surplus energy....... 479 453
Global Warming............................. grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 35,800 34,200
Habitat Alteration......................... threatened and endangered species 0 0
count.
Human Health............................... grams of toluene equivalent........ 1,250,000 553,000
Indoor Air................................. grams of total volatile organic 0 0
compounds.
Ozone Depletion............................ grams of chlorofluoro-carbon-11 1.35E-06 1.04E-05
equivalents.
Smog....................................... grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 413 163
Water Intake............................... liters of water.................... 5,900 633
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit...................................................5 gallons.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5b--Environmental Performance Scores for Gear Lubricants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Environmental Performance Score 0.3405 0.1856
\1\....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).................. 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)........ 0.0009 0.0009
Ecological Toxicity (11%)........... 0.0326 0.0387
Eutrophication (5%)................. 0.0802 0.0122
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).......... 0.0679 0.0641
Global Warming (16%)................ 0.0224 0.0214
Habitat Alteration (16%)............ 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).................. 0.0867 0.0383
Indoor Air (11%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)........................... 0.0164 0.0064
Water Intake (3%)................... 0.0334 0.0036
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs 63.08 87.50
($)) \2\...............................
-------------------------------
First Cost.......................... 63.08 87.50
Future Cost (3.9%).................. (\3\) (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit......................... 5 gallons of gear lubricant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
[[Page 63314]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.004
As seen in Table 5b, the total environmental performance scores are
0.1856 and 0.3405 points per five gallons of product. The life-cycle
costs of the submitted biobased gear lubricants are $63.08 to $87.50
(present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
6. General Purpose Household Cleaners
General purpose household cleaners are substances used to clean
common household surfaces found in the living spaces and on the
possessions located in households or similar settings. Household
cleaner products included in this item are those general purpose
household cleaners specifically marketed as suitable for cleaning
common household surfaces. In today's proposed rule, the definition of
general purpose household cleaners excludes products that are
formulated for use as disinfectants. Other products not included in
this item are task-specific household cleaners, such as scouring
cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, upholstery cleaners, laundry and
dishwashing detergents, spot/stain removers, oven cleaners, and drain
cleaners.
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, and/or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable
cleaning products, Federal agencies should compare the ``cradle-to-
grave'' impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of both biobased
and non-biobased products in order to determine which product is
environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 16 different manufacturers producing 24 individual
biobased general purpose household cleaner products. These 16
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
general purpose household cleaners, merely those identified during USDA
information gathering activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these products are being used
commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified
several test methods, a performance standard, and one other measure of
performance (as shown below) used in evaluating products within this
item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as
performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of
performance applicable to products within this item, those identified
by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
Boeing D6-7127, Cleaning Interiors of Commercial
Transport Aircraft;
ASTM D1308, ``Standard Test Method for Effect of Household
Chemicals on Clear and Pigmented Organic Finishes'';
Federal Test Method Standard 536A, Soap and Soap
Products (Including Synthetic Detergents) sampling and testing; and
[[Page 63315]]
South Coast Air Quality Management District, certification
as a ``Clean Air Solvent.''
Performance Standards
Green Seal 8 (GS-8), Green Seal Environmental
Standard for Household Cleaners; and
Boeing D6-7127, Cleaning Interiors of Commercial
Transport Aircraft. Product Certifications and Other Measures
United States Navy Navsea 6840--Surface ship
(non-submarine) authorized chemical cleaning products and dispensing
systems; and
Green Seal 8 (GS-8), Green Seal Environmental
Standard for Household Cleaners.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government using the procedure described in
the section on ``Chain and Cable Lubricants.'' These attempts were
largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies routinely perform
cleaning and maintenance activities, or procure cleaning and
maintenance services, that use these materials. Thus, they have a need
for general purpose household cleaners and for services that require
the use of household cleaners. Designation of ``general purpose
household 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 general purpose household cleaners was
performed for two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The
impact values for these two general purpose household cleaners are
presented in Table 6a. The environmental performance scores are
presented in Table 6b and in Figure 6.
Table 6a--Impact Values for General Purpose Household Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification.............................. millimoles of hydrogen ion 4,080 1,510
equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants.................... micro Disability-Adjusted Life 1.03 0.657
Years.
Ecological Toxicity........................ grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy- 351 8.76
acetic acid.
Eutrophication............................. grams of nitrogen equivalent....... 27.8 3.24
Fossil Fuel Depletion...................... megajoules of surplus energy....... 175 38.8
Global Warming............................. grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 13,600 3,000
Habitat Alteration......................... threatened and endangered species 0 0
count.
Human Health............................... grams of toluene equivalent........ 109,000 30,600
Indoor Air................................. grams of total volatile organic 0 0
compounds.
Ozone Depletion............................ grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 1.95E-04 2.28E-06
equivalents.
Smog....................................... grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 69.3 23.6
Water Intake............................... liters of water.................... 389 20.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit...................................................5 gallons.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6b--Environmental Performance Scores for General Purpose Household
Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Environmental Performance Score 0.1005 0.0127
\1\....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).................. 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)........ 0.0003 0.0002
Ecological Toxicity (11%)........... 0.0473 0.0012
Eutrophication (5%)................. 0.0072 0.0008
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).......... 0.0247 0.0055
Global Warming (16%)................ 0.0085 0.0019
Habitat Alteration (16%)............ 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).................. 0.0076 0.0021
Indoor Air (11%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)........................... 0.0027 0.0009
Water Intake (3%)................... 0.0022 0.0001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs 65.63 27.50
($)) \2\...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Cost.......................... 65.63 27.50
Future Cost (3.9%).................. (\3\) (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit......................... 5 gallons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
As seen in Table 6b, the total environmental performance scores are
0.0127 and 0.1005 points per five gallons of product. The life-cycle
costs of the submitted household cleaners are $27.50 and $65.63
(present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
[[Page 63316]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.005
7. Industrial Cleaners
Industrial cleaners are products used to remove contaminants, such
as adhesives, inks, paint, dirt, soil, and grease, from parts,
products, tools, machinery, equipment, vessels, floors, walls, and
other production-related work areas. Cleaning operations are performed
for a variety of reasons, such as safety and operability, and to avoid
contamination of the products being manufactured or repaired at the
facility. The cleaning products within this item are usually solvents,
but may take other forms. They may be used in either straight solution
or diluted with water in pressure washers, or in hand wiping
applications in industrial or manufacturing settings, such as inside
vessels.
Cleaners within this item are used in industrial settings in which
production processes take place. This distinguishes these types of
cleaners from institutional cleaners, which are used in settings where
production processes do not take place.
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, and/or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable
cleaning products, Federal agencies should compare the ``cradle-to-
grave'' impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of both biobased
and non-biobased products in order to determine which product is
environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 59 different manufacturers producing 122 individual
biobased industrial cleaner and/or solvent products. The 59
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
industrial cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition,
manufacturers and stakeholders identified test methods, performance
standards, and other measures of performance used in evaluating
products within this item. While there may be additional test methods,
as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other
measures of performance applicable to products within this item, those
identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
ASTM D445, ``Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity
of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of Dynamic
Viscosity);''
ASTM D92, ``Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points
by Cleveland Open Cup Tester;''
ASTM D1364, ``Standard Test Method for Water in Volatile
Solvents (Karl Fischer Reagent Titration Method);'' and
Environmental Protection Agency Method 24--
Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density,
Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coating.
Performance Standards
ASTM D446, ``Standard Specifications and Operating
Instructions for Glass Capillary Kinematic Viscometers;''
ASTM D13, ``Standard Specification for Spirits of
Turpentine;''
ASTM D1836, ``Standard Specification for Commercial
Hexanes;''
[[Page 63317]]
ASTM D235, ``Standard Specification for Mineral Spirits
(Petroleum Spirits) (Hydrocarbon Dry Cleaning Spirits);''
ASTM D3278, ``Standard Specification for 2-Ethoxyethyl
Acetate (99% Grade);''
Green Seal GS-37, Green Seal Environmental
Standard for General-Purpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners Used
for Industrial and Institutional Purposes; and
Boeing BAC 5750, Solvent Cleaning.
Product Certifications and Other Measures
Section 612 of EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP);
Green Seal GS-37, Green Seal Environmental
Standard for General-Purpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners Used
for Industrial and Institutional Purposes; and
EPA's National Contingency Plan.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government using the procedure described in
the section on ``Chain and Cable Lubricants.'' These attempts were
largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies routinely use, or
procure contract services, such as cleaning and maintenance services,
that use industrial cleaners. Thus, there is a need for industrial
cleaners. Designation of ``industrial 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 industrial cleaners was performed for
three of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values
for these three products are presented in Table 7a. The environmental
performance scores are presented in Table 7b and in Figure 7.
Table 7a--Impact Values for Industrial Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B Sample C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification...................... millimoles of hydrogen ion 433 11,100 34,000
equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants............ micro Disability-Adjusted 0.134 3.56 16.2
Life Years.
Ecological Toxicity................ grams of 2,4-dichloro- 79.5 234 76.5
phenoxy-acetic acid.
Eutrophication..................... grams of nitrogen 0.971 58.7 45.2
equivalent.
Fossil Fuel Depletion.............. megajoules of surplus 16.7 470 133
energy.
Global Warming..................... grams of carbon dioxide 953 32,600 158,000
equivalents.
Habitat Alteration................. threatened and endangered 0 0 0
species count.
Human Health....................... grams of toluene equivalent 4,940 291,000 103,000
Indoor Air......................... grams of total volatile 0 0 0
organic compounds.
Ozone Depletion.................... grams of chloroflouro- 1.66E-08 2.21E-04 5.19E-06
carbon-11 equivalents.
Smog............................... grams of nitrogen oxide 15.5 139 198
equivalents.
Water Intake....................... liters of water............ 48.7 623 287
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit.........................................5 gallons of product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7b--Environmental Performance Scores for Industrial Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B Sample C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Environmental Performance Score \1\....................... 0.0152 0.1641 0.1615
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).......................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................................ 0.0000 0.0011 0.0051
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................................... 0.0107 0.0316 0.0103
Eutrophication (5%)......................................... 0.0003 0.0153 0.0118
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................................. 0.0024 0.0665 0.0189
Global Warming (16%)........................................ 0.0006 0.0204 0.0989
Habitat Alteration (16%).................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................................... 0.0003 0.0202 0.0071
Indoor Air (11%)............................................ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................................ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................................... 0.0006 0.0055 0.0078
Water Intake (3%)........................................... 0.0003 0.0035 0.0016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) \2\................. 8.85 82.00 84.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Cost.................................................. 8.85 82.00 84.95
Future Cost (3.9%).......................................... (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit................................................. Five gallons of product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
[[Page 63318]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.006
As seen in Table 7b, the total environmental performance scores
range from 0.0152 to 0.1641 per five gallons of product. The life-cycle
costs of the submitted industrial cleaners range from $8.85 to $84.95
(present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
8. Multipurpose Cleaners
Multipurpose cleaners are used to clean dirt, grease, and grime
from a variety of items and are used in both industrial and domestic
settings. Multipurpose cleaners are intended for broader applications
than those cleaners designated as general purpose household cleaners,
task-specific cleaners (e.g., bathroom and spa cleaners), and
industrial cleaners. In today's proposed rule, the definition of
multipurpose cleaners excludes products that are formulated for use as
disinfectants.
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, and/or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable
cleaning products, Federal agencies should compare the ``cradle-to-
grave'' impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of both biobased
and non-biobased products in order to determine which product is
environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 39 different manufacturers producing 61 individual
biobased multipurpose cleaner products. These 39 manufacturers do not
necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased multipurpose
cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that
these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers
and stakeholders identified several test methods and other measures of
performance and one performance standard used in evaluating products
within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well
as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of
performance applicable to products within this item, those identified
by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
ASTM D1298, ``Standard Test Method for Density, Relative
Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and
Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method'';
ASTM D130, ``Standard Test Method for Corrosiveness to
Copper from Petroleum Products by Copper Strip Test'';
ASTM D2500, ``Standard Test Method for Cloud Point of
Petroleum Products'';
ASTM D86, ``Standard Test Method for Distillation of
Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure'';
Environmental Protection Agency Method 601,
Purgeable Halocarbons;
Environmental Protection Agency Method 602,
Purgeable Aromatics;
Environmental Protection Agency Method 608,
Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs;
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OECD 301B--CO2 Evolution Test for Biodegradation;
Society of Automotive Engineers APR 1755B--Effect
of Cleaning Agents on Aircraft Engine Materials, Stock Loss Test
Method;
Green Seal GS-37, Green Seal Environmental
Standard for General-
[[Page 63319]]
Purpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners Used for Industrial and
Institutional Purposes; and
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA 600/
4-90-027F).
Performance Standards
Green Seal GS-34--Standard Establishing
Environmental Requirements for Cleaning/Degreasing Agents.
Product Certifications and Other Measures
Choice Eco Logo (Canada);
Acute Dermal Toxicity; and
Acute Oral Toxicity.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government using the procedure described in
the section on ``Chain and Cable Lubricants.'' These attempts were
largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies routinely use, or
procure contract services that use, multipurpose cleaners in a variety
of cleaning and maintenance activities. Thus, there is a need for
multipurpose cleaners. Designation of ``multipurpose 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 multipurpose cleaners was performed for
one of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values
for this multipurpose cleaner are presented in Table 8a. The
environmental performance scores are presented in Table 8b and in
Figure 8.
Table 8a--Summary of BEES Results for Multipurpose Cleaners--Impact
Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification.................. millimoles of hydrogen 2,910
ion equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants........ micro Disability- 1.19
Adjusted Life Years.
Ecological Toxicity............ grams of 2,4-dichloro- 158
phenoxy-acetic acid.
Eutrophication................. grams of nitrogen 17.5
equivalent.
Fossil Fuel Depletion.......... megajoules of surplus 5.12
energy.
Global Warming................. grams of carbon dioxide 4,680
equivalents.
Habitat Alteration............. threatened and 0
endangered species
count.
Human Health................... grams of toluene 47,100
equivalent.
Indoor Air..................... grams of total volatile 0
organic compounds.
Ozone Depletion................ grams of chloroflouro- 4.53E-06
carbon-11 equivalents.
Smog........................... grams of nitrogen oxide 65.1
equivalents.
Water Intake................... liters of water........ 4,000
Functional Unit......................................... (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use multipurpose cleaner.
Table 8b--Environmental Performance Scores for Multipurpose Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score \1\......... 0.0649
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).................................. 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)........................ 0.0004
Ecological Toxicity (11%)........................... 0.0213
Eutrophication (5%)................................. 0.0046
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).......................... 0.0072
Global Warming (16%)................................ 0.0029
Habitat Alteration (16%)............................ 0.0000
Human Health (11%).................................. 0.0033
Indoor Air (11%).................................... 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)................................ 0.0000
Smog (6%)........................................... 0.0026
Water Intake (3%)................................... 0.0226
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) \2\......... 5,950.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Cost.......................................... 5,950.00
Future Cost (3.9%).................................. (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit......................................... (\4\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\4\ 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use multipurpose cleaner.
[[Page 63320]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.007
As seen in Table 8b, the total environmental performance score and
the life-cycle cost for the submitted multipurpose cleaner are,
respectively, 0.0649 points per 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to
use product and $5,950.00 per 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use
product.
9. Parts Wash Solutions
Parts wash solutions are products used in cleaning and machining
parts to remove dirt and grease buildup on used parts. The products are
intended to be used in manual or automatic cleaning systems including,
but not limited to, soak vats and tanks, ultrasonic cleaners, and
cabinet washers.
USDA identified 16 different manufacturers producing 22 individual
biobased parts wash solution products. These 16 manufacturers do not
necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased parts wash solutions,
merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified four test methods used in evaluating products
within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well
as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of
performance applicable to products within this item, those identified
by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
ASTM D445, ``Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity
of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of Dynamic
Viscosity)'';
ASTM D446, ``Standard Specifications and Operating
Instructions for Glass Capillary Kinematic Viscometers'';
ASTM D877, ``Standard Test Method for Dielectric Breakdown
Voltage of Insulating Liquids Using Disk Electrodes''; and
ASTM D92, ``Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points
by Cleveland Open Cup Tester''.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government using the procedure described in
the section on ``Chain and Cable Lubricants.'' These attempts were
largely unsuccessful. USDA is aware of biobased parts wash solutions
being used by at least one U.S. Air Force base that overhauls aircraft
parts. However, Federal agencies or their services contractors
routinely perform, and procure services that perform, the types of
cleaning and maintenance activities that utilize parts wash solutions.
Thus, there is a need for parts wash solutions. Designation of ``parts
wash solutions'' 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 parts wash solutions was performed for two
of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for
these two parts wash solutions are presented in Table 9a. The
environmental performance scores are presented in Table 9b and in
Figure 9.
[[Page 63321]]
Table 9a--Impact Values for Parts Wash Solutions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification.......................... millimoles of hydrogen ion 2,870 1,960
equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants................ micro Disability-Adjusted Life 1.12 0.594
Years.
Ecological Toxicity.................... grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy- 71.4 40.1
acetic acid.
Eutrophication......................... grams of nitrogen equivalent... 8.83 10.7
Fossil Fuel Depletion.................. megajoules of surplus energy... 130 76.4
Global Warming......................... grams of carbon dioxide 7,560 5,100
equivalents.
Habitat Alteration..................... threatened and endangered 0 0
species count.
Human Health........................... grams of toluene equivalent.... 75,400 55,200
Indoor Air............................. grams of total volatile organic 0 0
compounds.
Ozone Depletion........................ grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 1.10E-05 2.03E-06
equivalents.
Smog................................... grams of nitrogen oxide 30.3 21.5
equivalents.
Water Intake........................... liters of water................ 92.6 117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit................................................1 gallon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9b--Summary of BEES Results for Parts Wash Solutions--
Environmental Performance Scores
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Environmental Performance Score 0.0421 0.0278
\1\....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).................. 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)........ 0.0003 0.0002
Ecological Toxicity (11%)........... 0.0096 0.005
Eutrophication (5%)................. 0.0023 0.0028
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).......... 0.0183 0.0108
Global Warming (16%)................ 0.0047 0.0032
Habitat Alteration (16%)............ 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).................. 0.0052 0.0038
Indoor Air (11%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)........................... 0.0012 0.0009
Water Intake (3%)................... 0.0005 0.0007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs 10.43 16.99
($)) \2\...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Cost.......................... 10.43 16.99
Future Cost (3.9%).................. (\3\) (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit......................... gallon of parts wash solution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
[[Page 63322]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.008
As seen in Table 9b, the total environmental performance scores are
0.0278 and 0.0421 points per gallon of product. The life-cycle costs of
the submitted parts wash solutions are $10.43 and $16.99 (present value
dollars) per gallon of product.
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
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.
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 items. The data presented in the
following paragraphs are the test results from all of the product
samples that were submitted for analysis.
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 three (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 encourages procuring agencies to seek products with the
highest biobased content that is practicable in all of the proposed
designated items. To assist the procuring agencies in determining which
products have the highest biobased content, USDA will update the
information in the biobased products catalog to include the biobased
content of each product. Those products within each designated item
that have the highest biobased content will be listed first and others
will be listed in descending order. USDA is specifically requesting
comments on the proposed minimum biobased contents of designated items
and also requests additional data that can be used to re-evaluate the
appropriateness of the proposed minimum biobased contents. As the
market for biobased products develops and USDA obtains additional
biobased content data, it will re-evaluate the established minimum
biobased contents of designated items and consider raising them
whenever justified.
The following paragraphs summarize the information that USDA used
to propose minimum biobased contents within each proposed designated
item.
1. Chain and Cable Lubricants
Nine of the 37 biobased chain and cable lubricants identified have
been
[[Page 63323]]
tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866.\2\ The biobased contents
of these nine biobased chain and cable lubricants ranged from 80
percent to 100 percent, as follows: 80, 81, 86, 89, 96, 99, 100, 100,
and 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The biobased contents for the tested products fall within a fairly
narrow range with no significant breaks or gaps in the data. Therefore,
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item at
77 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content of 80
percent. The tested 80 percent value is adjusted to 77 percent to
account for possible variability in the results of ASTM D6866, as
discussed earlier.
2. Corrosion Preventatives
Ten of the 97 available biobased corrosion preventatives have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased contents of
these ten biobased corrosion preventatives ranged from 26 percent to 94
percent as follows: 26, 26, 56, 59, 61, 74, 85, 91, 92, and 94.
As seen, the tested biobased contents cover a wide range, from 26
percent to 94 percent, with a significant gap in the range between the
26 and 56 percent products and another between the 61 and 74 percent
products. USDA reviewed the product information for the two products
with 26 percent biobased content to determine if there was any
justification for creating a subcategory within the item or for
considering these products when setting the proposed minimum biobased
content. USDA did not identify any performance or applicability
features of these products that justified creating a subcategory or
setting the minimum biobased content at a level that would include
them. USDA next evaluated the available information for the group of
products with biobased contents between 56 and 61 percent. USDA found
that the manufacturer of the product with a biobased content of 61
percent indicates that their product meets the ASTM D665 Turbine Oil
Rust Test. The manufacturers of the products with higher biobased
contents have not indicated that their products meet this performance
level. USDA does not have sufficient information to otherwise
distinguish among the products in the group of products whose biobased
contents range from 56 to 61 percent. For these reasons, USDA is
proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item at 53
percent, based on the product with the lowest biobased content in the
group of products with tested biobased contents of 56 to 61 percent.
3. Food Cleaners
Five of the 15 biobased food cleaners identified have been tested
for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased contents of these
five biobased food cleaners ranged from 56 percent to 98 percent as
follows: 56, 61, 65, 76, and 98.
While this is a fairly wide range of biobased contents between the
lowest biobased content and the highest biobased content among the
tested products, the only significant gap in the data is between the 76
and the 98 percent products. Because most of the biobased contents are
grouped towards the lower end of the range, USDA evaluated the
available information for these products to determine if there was
justification for creating separate subcategories for these products
and for the one product with 98 percent biobased content. USDA found
that there was not sufficient information on performance or
applicability of the products to support the creation of subcategories.
Therefore, USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for
this item at 53 percent, based on the product with the lowest biobased
content in the group of products with tested biobased contents ranging
from 56 to 65 percent.
4. Forming Lubricants
Five of the 13 biobased forming lubricants identified have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased contents of
these five biobased forming lubricants ranged from 38 percent to 99
percent as follows: 38, 71, 85, 85, and 99.
Considering that there is a significant gap in the data points
between the 38 and 71 percent biobased products, USDA evaluated the
information available on these products to determine if there was
justification for creating subcategories. USDA found that there was not
sufficient information to create subcategories or to include the 38
percent biobased product when setting the minimum biobased content for
the item. USDA found that the product with 71 percent biobased content
was product claimed by its manufacturer to be biodegradable, while the
manufacturers of the 85 and 99 percent biobased products did not make
such claims for their products. Because biodegradability is a desired
feature, USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this
item at 68 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased content
of 71 percent.
5. Gear Lubricants
Eight of the 24 biobased gear lubricants identified have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased contents of
these eight biobased gear lubricants ranged from 4 percent to 100
percent as follows: 4, 61, 69, 81, 87, 89, 97, and 100.
Because there is a significant gap in biobased content between the
products with 4 and 61 percent biobased content, USDA evaluated the 4
percent biobased product to determine if it possessed performance or
applicability features that the other products did not. USDA found no
performance or applicability characteristics that set this product
apart from other products in this item. Therefore, UDSA dropped this
product from consideration in setting the minimum biobased content for
this item.
The tested biobased content of the remaining six products, as shown
above, ranged from 61 percent to 100 percent. USDA found that the
manufacturers of the products with 61 and 69 percent biobased content
have tested their products against numerous performance standards and
that the remaining manufacturers do not claim to have done so. To
ensure that products are available within this item that meet a range
of performance standards, USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased
content for this item at 58 percent, based on the product with a tested
biobased content of 61 percent.
6. General Purpose Household Cleaners
Nine of the 24 biobased general purpose household cleaners
identified have been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The
biobased contents of these nine biobased general purpose household
cleaners ranged from 10 percent to 95 percent as follows: 10, 42, 54,
61, 72, 81, 82, 91, and 95.
The biobased content of the 10 percent product is substantially
below the next lowest tested product (42 percent) and USDA found no
performance or applicability characteristics that set the 10 percent
product apart from other products in this item. Therefore, UDSA dropped
this product from consideration in setting the minimum biobased content
for this item.
[[Page 63324]]
The tested biobased contents of the remaining eight products, as
shown above, ranged from 42 percent to 95 percent. Because this is a
wide range of values, USDA considered the possibility of creating
subcategories within this item. However, USDA does not have sufficient
data on the performance and applicability of products within this item
to support the creation of subcategories. USDA will continue to request
product performance data and, if sufficient supporting data can be
obtained, will consider creating subcategories within this item in the
final rule. Because of the lack of supporting data for
subcategorization and because there are no significant gaps in the
biobased content of the eight products being considered, USDA is
proposing to set the minimum biobased content for general purpose
household cleaners at 39 percent, based on the product with a tested
biobased content of 42 percent.
7. Industrial Cleaners
Thirty-two of the 121 biobased industrial cleaners identified have
been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The tested biobased
contents for these 32 biobased industrial cleaners ranged from 2
percent to 100 percent, as follows: 2, 18, 18, 44, 49, 52, 61, 69, 73,
74, 77, 79, 80, 80, 82, 85, 91, 92, 92, 94, 95, 95, 96, 96, 97, 97, 98,
and 100 (five products).
Because there is a significant gap between the 18 and the 44
percent biobased content products, USDA reviewed the information on the
three products with tested biobased contents of 2 percent and 18
percent to determine if subcategorization was justified. USDA found no
performance or applicability characteristics that set these products
apart from other products in this item and, thus, they were eliminated
from consideration for establishing the minimum biobased content.
The tested biobased contents of the remaining 26 products, as shown
above, ranged from 44 percent to 100 percent. Because of the
variability of the substrates to be cleaned and of the contaminants
that are encountered on those substrates, USDA considered
subcategorizing this item. However, at the present time USDA does not
have sufficient data to segregate the various products into
subcategories based on formulation or performance. As a result, USDA is
proposing to maintain industrial cleaners as a single item. Because
there are no significant gaps in the 26 biobased content data points
being considered, USDA proposes to set the minimum biobased content for
this item at 41 percent, based on the product with a tested biobased
content of 44 percent. If sufficient data become available after
proposal, USDA will re-evaluate the possibility of subcategorizing this
item.
8. Multipurpose Cleaners
Eighteen of the 62 biobased multipurpose cleaners identified have
been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased
contents of these 18 biobased multipurpose cleaners ranged from 11
percent to 96 percent as follows: 11, 15, 25, 28, 31, 37, 45, 49, 59,
65, 69, 72, 78, 79, 84, 88, 96, and 96.
As with the industrial cleaners item, USDA considered
subcategorizing this item based on factors such as product
formulations, the variability of the substrates to be cleaned, and the
contaminants that are encountered. However, at the present time USDA
does not have sufficient data to segregate the various products into
subcategories based on formulation or performance. As a result, USDA is
proposing to maintain multipurpose cleaners as a single item. Although
there are no large gaps in the range of biobased content data points,
USDA considered the 10-point gap between the 49 and the 59 percent
biobased content products to be sufficient for creating two groups of
products; one with biobased contents of 49 percent and lower and one
with biobased contents of 59 percent and higher. USDA evaluated the
product information available for each product within the two product
groups and was unable to identify performance or applicability features
in the 49 percent and lower group that were not available in the 59
percent and higher group. Thus, USDA proposes to set the minimum
biobased content for this item at 56 percent, based on the 59 percent
biobased product from the group of products with the higher biobased
contents. If sufficient data become available after proposal, USDA will
re-evaluate the possibility of subcategorizing this item.
9. Parts Wash Solutions
Seven of the 22 biobased parts wash solutions identified have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased contents of
these seven biobased parts wash solutions ranged from 12 percent to 96
percent as follows: 12, 13, 68, 83, 89, 94, and 96.
Because there is a significant gap between the 13 and the 68
percent biobased content products, USDA reviewed the information on the
products with tested biobased contents of 12 percent and 13 percent to
determine if subcategorization was justified. USDA found no performance
or applicability characteristics that set these products apart from
other products in this item and, thus, they were eliminated from
consideration for establishing the minimum biobased content.
Because the overall range of the five remaining data points is
fairly narrow, and the available product information does not support
any subcategorization of this item, USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for parts wash solutions at 65 percent, based
on the product with a tested biobased content of 68 percent.
D. Compliance 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, as proposed, 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 is proposing a one-year period before the procurement
preferences would take effect based on recognizing that Federal
agencies will need time to incorporate the preferences into procurement
documents and to revise existing standardized specifications. Section
9002(a)(3), as amended by the FCEA of 2008, 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 the date of this
Federal Register notice), 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
[[Page 63325]]
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?
Information used to develop this proposed rule can be found in the
technical support document, which can be accessed on the BioPreferred
Web site, which is located at: http://www.biopreferred.gov. At the
BioPreferred Web site, click on the Proposed and Final Regulations link
on the left side of the page. At the next screen, click on the
Supporting Documentation link under Round 5 Designated Items under the
Proposed Regulations section.
Further, once the item designations in today's proposal become
final, manufacturers and vendors voluntarily may make available
information on specific products, including product and contact
information, for posting by USDA on the BioPreferred Web site. USDA
will periodically audit the information displayed on the BioPreferred
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 BioPreferred 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 ASTM Standard D7075, ``Standard Practice for Evaluating and
Reporting Environmental Performance of Biobased Products.''
USDA has linked the BioPreferred 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 the BioPreferred Web
site and click on the ``Selling to Federal Government'' 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.''
Today's proposed rule has been determined significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget. We are not able to quantify the annual
economic effect associated with today's proposed rule. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, USDA made extensive efforts to obtain
information on the Federal agencies' usage within today's designated
items, including their subcategories. These efforts were largely
unsuccessful. Therefore, attempts to quantify the economic impact of
today's proposed rule would require estimation of the anticipated
market penetration of biobased products based upon many assumptions. In
addition, because agencies have the option of not purchasing designated
items if costs are ``unreasonable,'' the product is not readily
available, or the product does not demonstrate necessary performance
characteristics, certain assumptions may not be valid. While facing
these quantitative challenges, USDA relied upon a qualitative
assessment to determine the impacts of today's proposed rule. This
assessment was based primarily on the offsetting nature of the program
(an increase in biobased products purchased with a corresponding
decrease in fossil energy-based products (including petroleum, coal and
natural gas) purchased). Consideration was also given to the fact that
agencies may choose not to procure designated items due to unreasonable
costs.
1. Summary of Impacts
Today's proposed rule is expected to have both positive and
negative impacts on individual businesses, including small businesses.
USDA anticipates that the biobased preferred procurement program will
provide additional opportunities for businesses and manufacturers to
begin supplying products under the proposed designated biobased items
to Federal agencies and their contractors. However, other businesses
and manufacturers that supply only non-qualifying products and do not
offer biobased alternatives may experience a decrease in demand from
Federal agencies and their contractors. USDA is unable to determine the
number of businesses, including small businesses, which may be
adversely affected by today's proposed rule. The proposed rule,
however, will not affect existing purchase orders, nor will it preclude
businesses from modifying their product lines to meet new requirements
for designated biobased products. 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 the rule.
2. Benefits of the Proposed Rule
The designation of these items provides the benefits outlined in
the objectives of section 9002: To increase domestic demand for 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; to enhance the Nation's energy security by substituting
biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural
gas; and to substitute products with a possibly more benign or
beneficial environmental impact, as compared to the use of fossil
energy-based products. On a national and regional level, today's
proposed rule can result in expanding and strengthening markets for
biobased materials used in these items.
3. Costs of the Proposed Rule
Like the benefits, the costs of today's proposed rule have not been
quantified. Two types of costs are involved: Costs to producers of
products that will compete with the preferred products and costs to
Federal agencies to provide
[[Page 63326]]
procurement preference for the preferred products. Producers of
competing products may face a decrease in demand for their products to
the extent Federal agencies refrain from purchasing their products.
However, it is not known to what extent this may occur. Procurement
costs for Federal agencies may rise as they evaluate the availability
and relative cost of preferred products before making a purchase.
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 items to determine whether its actions would have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the preferred
procurement program established under section 9002, as amended by the
FCEA of 2008, 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 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 items proposed for designation by
today's proposed rule, 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 rule 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.
Today's proposed 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 may 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 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.
[[Page 63327]]
J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
USDA 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 designated item. For information pertinent to GPEA
compliance related to this rule, please contact Shana Love at (202)
205-4008.
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
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.
Subpart B
2. Add Sec. Sec. 2902.43 through 2902.51 to subpart B to read as
follows:
Sec.
2902.43 Chain and cable lubricants.
2902.44 Corrosion preventatives.
2902.45 Food cleaners.
2902.46 Foaming lubricants.
2902.47 Gear lubricants.
2902.48 General purpose household cleaners.
2902.49 Industrial cleaners.
2902.50 Multipurpose cleaners.
2902.51 Parts wash solutions.
Sec. 2902.43 Chain and cable lubricants.
(a) Definition. Products designed to provide lubrication in such
applications as bar and roller chains, sprockets, and wire ropes and
cables. Products may also prevent rust and corrosion in these
applications.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The preferred procurement product
must have a minimum biobased content of at least 77 percent, which
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 compliance 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 chain and cable lubricants. 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 chain and cable lubricants.
Sec. 2902.44 Corrosion preventatives.
(a) Definition. Products designed to prevent the deterioration
(corrosion) of metals.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The preferred procurement product
must have a minimum biobased content of at least 53 percent, which
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 compliance 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 corrosion preventatives. 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 corrosion preventatives.
Sec. 2902.45 Food cleaners.
(a) Definition. Anti-microbial products designed to clean the outer
layer of various food products, such as fruit, vegetables, and meats.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The preferred procurement product
must have a minimum biobased content of at least 53 percent, which
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 compliance 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 food 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 food cleaners.
Sec. 2902.46 Forming lubricants.
(a) Definition. Products designed to provide lubrication during
metalworking applications that are performed under extreme pressure.
Such metalworking applications include tube bending, stretch forming,
press braking, and swaging.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The preferred procurement product
must have a minimum biobased content of at least 68 percent, which
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 compliance 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 forming lubricants. 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 forming lubricants.
Sec. 2902.47 Gear lubricants.
(a) Definition. Products, such as greases or oils, that are
designed to reduce friction when applied to a toothed machine part
(such as a wheel or cylinder) that meshes with another toothed part to
transmit motion or to change speed or direction.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The preferred procurement product
must have a minimum biobased content of at least 58 percent, which
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 compliance 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 gear lubricants. 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 gear lubricants.
(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 following EPA-designated recovered content
product: Re-refined lubricating oils. USDA is requesting that
manufacturers of these qualifying biobased products provide information
for the BioPreferred 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
[[Page 63328]]
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 re-refined lubricating oils and which product should be
afforded the preference in purchasing.
Note to paragraph (d): Biobased gear lubricant products within
this designated item can compete with similar gear lubricant
products with recycled content. Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency designated re-refined lubricating oils containing
recovered materials as items for which Federal agencies must give
preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be
found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.11.
Sec. 2902.48 General purpose household cleaners.
(a) Definition. Products designed to clean multiple common
household surfaces. This designated item does not include products that
are formulated for use as disinfectants. Task-specific cleaning
products, such as spot and stain removers, upholstery cleaners,
bathroom cleaners, glass cleaners, etc., are not included in this item.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The preferred procurement product
must have a minimum biobased content of at least 39 percent, which
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 compliance 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 general purpose household 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 general purpose household
cleaners.
Sec. 2902.49 Industrial cleaners.
(a) Definition. Products used to remove contaminants, such as
adhesives, inks, paint, dirt, soil, and grease, from parts, products,
tools, machinery, equipment, vessels, floors, walls, and other
production-related work areas. The cleaning products within this item
are usually solvents, but may take other forms. They may be used in
either straight solution or diluted with water in pressure washers, or
in hand wiping applications in industrial or manufacturing settings,
such as inside vessels. Task-specific cleaners used in industrial
settings, such as parts wash solutions, are not included in this
definition.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The preferred procurement product
must have a minimum biobased content of at least 41 percent, which
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 compliance 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 industrial 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 industrial cleaners.
Sec. 2902.50 Multipurpose cleaners.
(a) Definition. Products used to clean dirt, grease, and grime from
a variety of items in both industrial and domestic settings. This
designated item does not include products that are formulated for use
as disinfectants.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The preferred procurement product
must have a minimum biobased content of at least 56 percent, which
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 compliance 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 multipurpose 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 multipurpose cleaners.
Sec. 2902.51 Parts wash solutions.
(a) Definition. Products that are designed to clean parts in manual
or automatic cleaning systems. Such systems include, but are not
limited to, soak vats and tanks, cabinet washers, and ultrasonic
cleaners.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The preferred procurement product
must have a minimum biobased content of at least 65 percent, which
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 compliance 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 parts wash solutions. 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 parts wash solutions.
Dated: October 16, 2008.
Boyd Rutherford,
Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. E8-25037 Filed 10-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-GL-P