Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement, 47590-47612 [06-6920]
Download as PDF
47590
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
7 CFR Part 2902
RIN 0503–AA31
Designation of Biobased Items for
Federal Procurement
Office of Energy Policy and
New Uses, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to
amend 7 CFR part 2902, Guidelines for
Designating Biobased Products for
Federal Procurement, to add 10 sections
to designate the following 10 items
within which biobased products would
be afforded Federal procurement
preference, as provided for under
section 9002 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002: 2-Cycle
engine oils; lip care products;
biodegradable films; stationary
equipment hydraulic fluids;
biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners;
greases; dust suppressants; carpets; and
carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA
also is proposing minimum biobased
content for each of these items. Once
USDA designates an item, procuring
agencies are required generally to
purchase biobased products within
these designated items where the
purchase price of the procurement item
exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity
of such items or the functionally
equivalent items purchased over the
preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or
more.
DATES: USDA will accept public
comments on this proposed rule until
October 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods. All
submissions received must include the
agency name and Regulatory
Information Number (RIN). The RIN for
this rulemaking is 0503–AA31. Also,
please identify submittals as pertaining
to the ‘‘Proposed Designation of Items.’’
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: fb4p@oce.usda.gov. Include
RIN number 0503–AA31 and ‘‘Proposed
Designation of Items’’ on the subject
line. Please include your name and
address in your message.
• Mail/commercial/hand delivery:
Mail or deliver your comments to:
Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the
Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy
and New Uses, Room 4059, South
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
SW., MS–3815, Washington, DC 20250–
3815.
• Persons with disabilities who
require alternative means for
communication for regulatory
information (braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the
USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720–
2600 (voice) and (202) 401–4133 (TDD).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the
Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy
and New Uses, Room 4059, South
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW., MS–3815, Washington, DC 20250–
3815; e-mail: mduncan@oce.usda.gov;
phone (202) 401–0461. Information
regarding the Federal Biobased Products
Preferred Procurement Program is
available on the Internet at https://
www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
The
information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Today’s Proposed
Rulemaking
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased
Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
B. Items Proposed for Designation
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
D. Effective Date for Procurement
Preference and Incorporation into
Specifications
V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information
on These USDA-designated Items?
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 12372:
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act
Compliance
I. Authority
The designation of these items is
proposed under the authority of section
9002 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), 7
U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this
document as ‘‘section 9002’’).
II. Background
Section 9002 of FSRIA, as amended
by section 943 of the Energy Policy Act
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of 2005, Public Law 109–58 (Energy
Policy Act), provides for the preferred
procurement of biobased products by
procuring agencies. Section 943 of the
Energy Policy Act amended the
definitions section of FSRIA, 7 U.S.C.
8101, by adding a definition of
‘‘procuring agency’’ that includes both
Federal agencies and ‘‘any person
contracting with any Federal agency
with respect to work performed under
that contract.’’ The amendment also
made Federal contractors, as well as
Federal agencies, expressly subject to
the procurement preference provisions
of section 9002 of FSRIA. However,
because this program requires agencies
to incorporate the preference for
biobased products into procurement
specifications, the statutory amendment
makes no substantive change to the
program. USDA amended the
Guidelines to incorporate the new
definition of ‘‘procuring agency’’
through an interim final rule.
Procuring agencies must procure
biobased products within each
designated item unless they determine
that products within a designated item
are not reasonably available within a
reasonable period of time, fail to meet
the reasonable performance standards of
the procuring agencies, or are available
only at an unreasonable price. As stated
in the Guidelines, biobased products
that are merely incidental to Federal
funding are excluded from the preferred
procurement program. In implementing
the preferred procurement program for
biobased products, procuring agencies
should follow their procurement rules
and Office of Federal Procurement
Policy guidance on buying non-biobased
products when biobased products exist
and should document exceptions taken
for price, performance, and availability.
USDA recognizes that the
performance needs for a given
application are important criteria in
making procurement decisions. USDA is
not requiring procuring agencies to limit
their choices to biobased products that
fall under the items for designation in
this proposed rule. Rather, the effect of
the designation of the items is to require
procuring agencies to determine their
performance needs, determine whether
there are qualified biobased products
that fall under the designated items that
meet the reasonable performance
standards for those needs, and purchase
such qualified biobased products to the
maximum extent practicable as required
by section 9002.
Section 9002 also requires USDA to
provide information to procuring
agencies on the availability, relative
price, performance, and environmental
and public health benefits of such items
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
and, under section 9002(e)(1)(C), to
recommend where appropriate the
minimum level of biobased content to
be contained in the procured products.
Overlap with EPA Comprehensive
Procurement Guidelines program for
recovered content products. Some of the
biobased items designated for preferred
procurement may overlap with products
designated under the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA)
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines
program for recovered content products.
Where that occurs, an EPA-designated
recovered content product (also known
as ‘‘recycled content products’’ or ‘‘EPAdesignated products’’) has priority in
Federal procurement over the qualifying
biobased product. In situations where
USDA believes there may be an overlap,
it plans to ask manufacturers of
qualifying biobased products to provide
additional product and performance
information including the various
suggested uses of their product and the
performance standards against which a
particular product has been tested. In
addition, depending on the type of
biobased product, manufacturers may
also be asked to provide other types of
information, such as whether the
product contains petroleum-, coal-, or
natural gas-based components and
whether the product contains recovered
materials. Federal agencies may also ask
manufacturers for information on a
product’s biobased content and its
profile against environmental and
human health measures and life cycle
costs (the Building for Environmental
and Economic Sustainability (BEES)
analysis or ASTM International (ASTM)
Standard D7075 for evaluating and
reporting on environmental
performance of biobased products).
Such information will assist Federal
agencies in determining whether the
biobased products in question are, or are
not, the same products for the same uses
as the recovered content products and
will be available on USDA’s Web site
with its catalog of qualifying biobased
products.
Where a biobased item is used for the
same purposes and to meet the same
requirements as an EPA-designated
recovered content product, the Federal
agency must purchase the recovered
content product. For example, if a
biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used as
a fluid in hydraulic systems and
‘‘lubricating oils containing re-refined
oil’’ has already been designated by EPA
for that purpose, then the Federal
agency must purchase the EPAdesignated recovered content product,
‘‘lubricating oils containing re-refined
oil.’’ If, on the other hand, that biobased
hydraulic fluid is to be used to address
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
certain environmental or health
requirements that the EPA-designated
recovered content product would not
meet, then the biobased product should
be given preference, subject to cost,
availability, and performance.
Federal Government Purchase of
‘‘Green’’ Products. Three components of
the Federal government’s green
purchasing program are the Biobased
Products Preferred Purchasing Program,
the Environmental Protection Agency’s
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines
for products containing recovered
materials, and the Environmentally
Preferable Products Program. The Office
of the Federal Environmental Executive
(OFEE) and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) encourage agencies
to implement these components
comprehensively when purchasing
products and services.
In the case of cleaning products,
procuring agencies should note that not
all biobased products are
‘‘environmentally preferable.’’ Unless
the cleaning products contain no or
reduced levels of metals and toxic and
hazardous constituents, they can be
harmful to aquatic life, the environment,
or workers. When purchasing
environmentally preferable cleaning
products, many Federal agencies specify
that products must meet Green Seal
standards for institutional cleaning
products or that products have been
reformulated in accordance with
recommendations from the U.S. EPA’s
Design for the Environment (DfE)
program. Both the Green Seal standards
and the DfE program identify chemicals
of concern in cleaning products. These
include zinc and other metals,
formaldehyde, ammonia, alkylphenol
ethoxylates, ethylene glycol, and
volatile organic compounds. In
addition, both require that cleaning
products have neutral or less caustic
pH.
On the other hand, some biobased
products may be better for the
environment than some products that
meet Green Seal standards for
institutional cleaning products or that
have been reformulated in accordance
with the EPA’s DfE program. To fully
compare products, one must look at the
‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts of the
manufacture, use, and disposal of
products. Biobased products that will be
available for preferred procurement
under this program have been assessed
as to their ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts.
One consideration of a product’s
impact on the environment is whether
(and to what degree) it introduces new
fossil carbon into the atmosphere.
Qualifying biobased products offer the
user the opportunity to manage the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47591
carbon cycle and limit the introduction
of new fossil carbon into the
atmosphere, whereas non-biobased
products derived from fossil fuels add
new fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
Manufacturers of qualifying biobased
products under the Federal Biobased
Products Preferred Procurement
Program (FB4P) will be able to provide,
at the request of Federal agencies,
factual information on environmental
and human health effects of their
products, including the results of the
BEES analysis, which examines 11
different environmental parameters,
including human health, or the
comparable ASTM D7505. Therefore,
USDA encourages Federal procurement
agencies to examine all available
information on the environmental and
human health effects of cleaning
products when making their purchasing
decisions.
Green Building Council. More than a
dozen Federal agencies use the U.S.
Green Building Council’s Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) Green Building Rating Systems
for new construction, building
renovation, and building operation and
maintenance. The systems provide
criteria for implementing sustainable
design principles in building design,
construction, operation, and
maintenance. Points are assigned to
each criterion, and building projects can
be certified as ‘‘certified,’’ ‘‘silver,’’
‘‘gold,’’ or ‘‘platinum,’’ depending on
the number of points for which the
project qualifies. LEED for New
Construction and Major Renovations
(LEED-NC) includes a ‘‘Materials &
Resources’’ criterion, with one point
allocated for the use of rapidly
renewable materials. Thus, the use of
biobased construction products can help
agencies obtain LEED certification for
their building construction projects.
Interagency Council. USDA has
created, and is chairing, an ‘‘interagency
council,’’ with membership selected
from among Federal stakeholders to the
FB4P. To augment its own research,
USDA consults with this council in
identifying the order of item
designation, manufacturers producing
and marketing products that fall within
an item proposed for designation,
performance standards used by Federal
agencies evaluating products to be
procured, and warranty information
used by manufacturers of end user
equipment and other products with
regard to biobased products.
III. Summary of Today’s Proposed
Rulemaking
Today, USDA is proposing to
designate the following 10 items for
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47592
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
preferred procurement: 2-Cycle engine
oils; lip care products; biodegradable
films; stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids; biodegradable cutlery; glass
cleaners; greases; dust suppressants;
carpets; and carpet and upholstery
cleaners. USDA is also proposing
minimum biobased content for each of
these items (see Section IV.C). Lastly,
USDA is proposing a date by which
Federal agencies must incorporate
designated items into their procurement
specifications (see Section IV.D).
In today’s proposed rulemaking,
USDA is providing information on its
findings as to the availability, economic
and technical feasibility, environmental
and public health benefits, and life
cycle costs for each of the 10 designated
items. Information on the availability,
relative price, performance, and
environmental and public health
benefits of individual products within
each of these 10 items is not presented
in this notice. Further, USDA has
reached an agreement with
manufacturers not to publish their
names in the Federal Register when
designating items. This agreement was
reached to encourage manufacturers to
submit products for testing to support
the designation of an item. Once an item
has been designated, USDA will
encourage the manufacturers of
products within the designated item to
voluntarily post their names and other
contact information on the USDA FB4P
Web site.
Warranties. Some of the items being
proposed for designation today may
affect maintenance warranties. As time
and resources allow, USDA will work
with manufacturers on addressing any
effect the use of biobased products may
have on maintenance warranties. At this
time, however, USDA does not have
information available as to whether or
not the manufacturers will state that the
use of these products will void
maintenance warranties. USDA
encourages manufacturers of biobased
products to work with original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to
ensure that biobased products will not
void maintenance warranties when
used. USDA is willing to assist
manufacturers of the biobased products,
if they find that existing performance
standards for maintenance warranties
are not relevant or appropriate for
biobased products, in working with the
appropriate OEMs to develop tests that
are relevant and appropriate for the end
uses in which biobased products are
intended. If despite these efforts there is
insufficient information regarding the
use of a biobased product and its effect
on maintenance warranties, USDA notes
that the procurement agent would not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
be required to buy such a product. As
information is available on warranties,
USDA will make such information
available on its FB4P Web site.
Additional Information. USDA is
working with manufacturers and
vendors to post all relevant product and
manufacturer contact information on the
FB4P Web site before a procuring
agency asks for it, in order to make the
preferred program more efficient. Steps
USDA has implemented, or will
implement, include: Making direct
contact with submitting companies
through e-mail and phone conversations
to encourage completion of product
listing; coordinating outreach efforts
with intermediate material producers to
encourage participation of their
customer base; conducting targeted
outreach with industry and commodity
groups to educate stakeholders on the
importance of providing complete
product information; participating in
industry conferences and meetings to
educate companies on program benefits
and requirements; and communicating
the potential for expanded markets
beyond the Federal government, to
include State and local governments, as
well as the general public markets.
Section V provides instructions to
agencies on how to obtain this
information on products within these
items through the following Web site:
https://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
Comments. USDA invites comment
on the proposed designation of these 10
items, including the definition,
proposed minimum biobased content,
and any of the relevant analyses
performed during the selection of these
items. In addition, USDA invites
comments and information in the
following areas:
1. Two of the items being proposed
for designation (stationary equipment
hydraulic fluids and carpets) may
overlap with products designated under
EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement
Guidelines for products containing
recovered material. To help procuring
agencies in making their purchasing
decisions between biobased products
within the proposed designated items
that overlap with products containing
recovered material, USDA is requesting
from manufacturers and users product
specific information on unique
performance attributes, environmental
and human health effects, disposal
costs, and other attributes that would
distinguish biobased products from
products containing recovered material
as well as non-biobased products. USDA
will post this information on the FB4P
Web site.
2. Biobased carpet can be composed
of a biobased face or a biobased backing
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or both (i.e., both the face and backing
are biobased). USDA is proposing in
today’s notice that the minimum
biobased content for carpet be based on
the total product; that is, on both the
carpet’s face and backing. USDA is
seeking comment on whether separate
minimum biobased contents should be
set for the face and for the backing.
Please provide detailed rationale and
information to support your comments.
3. USDA is proposing to designate
dust suppressants as an item for
preferred procurement. The products
intended to be covered are those
designed for use in outdoor
environments. However, the same
products, or products with very similar
formulations, may also be used in
indoor environments, such as indoor
arenas, that simulate outdoor
conditions. For example, an indoor
arena might provide parking on a dirt
floor, such as would be found in outside
parking. USDA is proposing that dust
suppressant products used for similar
situations that take place within an
indoor environment be included in this
item. USDA is interested in your
comments on whether this item should
be strictly limited to outdoor
environments. Please be sure to provide
your rationale for your comments.
4. We have attempted to identify
relevant and appropriate performance
standards and other relevant measures
of performance for each of the proposed
items. If you know of other such
standards or relevant measures of
performance for the proposed items,
USDA requests that you submit
information identifying such standards
and measures, including their name
(and other identifying information as
necessary), identifying who is using the
standard/measure, and describing the
circumstances under which the product
is being used. For example, in today’s
proposed rulemaking, a Green Seal
standard (GS–37) has been identified for
glass cleaners. USDA is interested in
learning if other equivalent standards
for glass cleaners exist and where they
are being used.
5. As proposed, biodegradable films
do not include films used for
agricultural purposes (such as films that
would be used to cover fields) and
durable films. Durable films will be
proposed as a separate item for
preferred procurement. USDA, however,
is interested in receiving comment on
whether there should be any
subcategories within biodegradable
films (including any biodegradable films
that might be considered agricultural
films) and what they might be. Please be
sure to provide rationale and supporting
information with your comments.
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
6. Many biobased products within the
items being proposed for designation
will have positive environmental and
human health attributes. USDA is
seeking comments on such attributes in
order to provide additional information
on the FB4P Web site. This information
will then be available to Federal
procuring agencies and will assist them
in making ‘‘best value’’ purchase
decisions. When possible, please
provide appropriate documentation to
support the environmental and human
health attributes you describe.
To assist you in developing your
comments, the background information
used in proposing these items for
designation can be found on the FB4P
Web site. All comments should be
submitted as directed in the ADDRESSES
section above.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum
Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
In order to designate items (generic
groupings of specific products such as
crankcase oils or products that contain
qualifying biobased fibers) for preferred
procurement, section 9002 requires
USDA to consider: (1) The availability
of items; and (2) the economic and
technological feasibility of using the
items, including the life cycle costs of
the items.
In considering an item’s availability,
USDA uses several sources of
information. USDA performs Internet
searches, contacts trade associations
(such as the Biobased Manufacturers
Association) and commodity groups,
searches the Thomas Register (a
database, used as a resource for finding
companies and products manufactured
in North America, containing over
173,000 entries), and contacts
individual manufacturers and vendors
to identify those manufacturers and
vendors with biobased products within
items being considered for designation.
USDA uses the results of these same
searches to determine if an item is
generally available.
In considering an item’s economic
and technological feasibility, USDA
examines evidence pointing to the
general commercial use of an item and
its cost and performance characteristics.
This information is obtained from the
sources used to assess an item’s
availability. Commercial use, in turn, is
evidenced by any manufacturer and
vendor information on the availability,
relative prices, and performance of their
products as well as by evidence of an
item being purchased by a procuring
agency or other entity, where available.
In sum, USDA considers an item
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
economically and technologically
feasible for purposes of designation if
products within that item are being
offered and used in the marketplace.
In considering the life cycle costs of
items proposed for designation, USDA
uses the BEES analytical tool to test
individual products within each
proposed item. (Detailed information on
this analytical tool can be found on the
Web site https://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/
software/bees.html.) The BEES
analytical tool measures the
environmental performance and the
economic performance of a product.
Environmental performance is
measured in the BEES analytical tool
using the internationally-standardized
and science-based life cycle assessment
approach specified in the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)
14000 standards. The BEES
environmental performance analysis
includes human health as one of its
components. All stages in the life of a
product are analyzed: Raw material
production; manufacture;
transportation; installation; use; and
recycling and waste management. The
time period over which environmental
performance is measured begins with
raw material production and ends with
disposal (waste management). The BEES
environmental performance analysis
also addresses products made from
biobased feedstocks.
Economic performance in the BEES
analysis is measured using the ASTM
standard life cycle cost method (ASTM
E917), which covers the costs of initial
investment, replacement, operation,
maintenance and repair, and disposal.
The time frame for economic
performance extends from the purchase
of the product to final disposal.
USDA then utilizes the BEES results
of individual products within a
designated item in its consideration of
the life cycle costs at the item level.
There is a single unit of comparison
associated with each designated item.
The basis for the unit of comparison is
the ‘‘functional unit,’’ defined so that
the products compared are true
substitutes for one another. If significant
differences have been identified in the
useful lives of alternative products
within a designated item (e.g., if one
product lasts twice as long as another),
the functional unit will include
reference to a time dimension to
account for the frequency of product
replacement. The functional unit also
will account for products used in
different amounts for equivalent service.
For example, one surface coating
product may be environmentally and
economically preferable to another on a
pound-for-pound basis, but may require
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47593
twice the mass to cover one square foot
of surface, and last half as long, as the
other product. To account for these
performance differences, the functional
unit for the surface coating item could
be ‘‘one square foot of application for 20
years’’ instead of ‘‘one pound of surface
coating product.’’ The functional unit
provides the critical reference point to
which all BEES results for products
within an item are scaled. Because
functional units vary from item to item,
performance comparisons are valid only
among products within a designated
item.
The complete results of the BEES
analysis, extrapolated to the item level,
for each item proposed for designation
in today’s proposed rulemaking can be
found at https://
www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
As discussed above, the BEES
analysis includes information on the
environmental performance, human
health impacts, and economic
performance. In addition, ASTM D7505,
which manufacturers may use in lieu of
the BEES analytical tool, provides
similar information. USDA is working
with manufacturers and vendors to post
this information on the FB4P Web site
before a procuring agency asks for it, in
order to make the preferred
procurement program more efficient. As
discussed earlier, USDA has also
implemented, or will implement,
several other steps intended to educate
the manufacturers and other
stakeholders on the benefits of this
program and the need to post this
information, including manufacturer
contact information, on the FB4P Web
site to make it available to procurement
officials. Additional information on
specific products within the items
proposed for designation may also be
obtained directly from the
manufacturers of the products.
USDA recognizes that information
related to the functional performance of
biobased products is a primary factor in
making the decision to purchase these
products. USDA is gathering from
manufacturers of biobased products
being considered for designation
information on industry standard test
methods that they are using to evaluate
the functional performance of their
products. Additional standards are also
being identified during meetings of the
Interagency Council and during the
review process for each proposed rule.
We have listed under the detailed
discussion of each item proposed for
designation (presented in Section IV.B)
the functional performance test methods
identified during the development of
this Federal Register notice for these 10
items. While this process identifies
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47594
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
many of the relevant standards, USDA
recognizes that the performance test
methods identified herein do not
represent all of the methods that may be
applicable for a designated item or for
any individual product within the
designated item. As noted earlier in this
preamble, USDA is requesting
identification of other relevant
performance standards and measures of
performance. As the program becomes
fully implemented, these and other
additional relevant performance
standards will be available on the FB4P
Web site.
In gathering information relevant to
the analyses discussed above, USDA has
made extensive efforts to contact and
request information and product
samples from representatives of all
known manufacturers of products
within the items proposed for
designation. However, because the
submission of information is on a
strictly voluntary basis, USDA was able
to obtain information and samples only
from those manufacturers who were
willing voluntarily to invest the
resources required to gather and submit
the information and samples. USDA
used the samples to test for biobased
content and the information to conduct
the BEES analyses. The data presented
are all the data that were submitted in
response to USDA requests for
information from all known
manufacturers of the products within
the 10 items proposed for designation.
While USDA would prefer to have
complete data on the full range of
products within each item, the data that
were submitted are sufficient to support
designation of the items in today’s
proposed rulemaking.
To propose an item for designation,
USDA must have sufficient information
on a sufficient number of products
within an item to be able to assess its
availability and its economic and
technological feasibility, including its
life cycle costs. For some items, there
may be numerous products available.
For other items, there may be very few
products currently available. Given the
infancy of the market for some items, it
is not unexpected that even singleproduct items will be identified.
Further, given that the intent of section
9002 is largely to stimulate the
production of new biobased products
and to energize emerging markets for
those products, USDA has determined
that the identification of two or more
biobased products within an item, or
even a single product with two or more
suppliers, is sufficient to consider the
designation of that item. Similarly, the
documented availability, benefits, and
life cycle costs of even a very small
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
percentage of all products that may exist
within an item are also considered
sufficient to support designation.
B. Items Proposed for Designation
USDA uses a model (as summarized
below) to identify and prioritize items
for designation. Through this model,
USDA has identified over 100 items for
potential designation under the
preferred procurement program. A list
of these items and information on the
model can be accessed on the USDA
biobased program Web site at https://
www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
In general, items are developed and
prioritized for designation by evaluating
them against program criteria
established by USDA and by gathering
information from other government
agencies, private industry groups, and
independent manufacturers. These
evaluations begin by asking the
following questions about the products
within an item:
• Are they cost competitive with nonbiobased products?
• Do they meet industry performance
standards?
• Are they readily available on the
commercial market?
In addition to these primary concerns,
USDA then considers the following
points:
• Are there manufacturers interested
in providing the necessary test
information on products within a
particular item?
• Are there a number of
manufacturers producing biobased
products in this item?
• Are there products available in this
item?
• What level of difficulty is expected
when designating this item?
• Is there Federal demand for the
product?
• Are Federal procurement personnel
looking for biobased products?
• Will an item create a high demand
for biobased feed stock?
• Does manufacturing of products
within this item increase potential for
rural development?
After completing this evaluation,
USDA prioritizes the list of items for
designation. USDA then gathers
information on products within the
highest priority items and, as sufficient
information becomes available for
groups of approximately 10 items, a new
rulemaking package will be developed
to designate the items within that group.
The list of items may change, with items
being added or dropped, and the order
in which items are proposed for
designation is likely to change because
the information necessary to designate
an item may take more time to obtain
than an item lower on the list.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In today’s proposed rulemaking,
USDA is proposing to designate 10
items for the preferred procurement
program: 2-Cycle engine oils; lip care
products; biodegradable films;
stationary equipment hydraulic fluids;
biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners;
greases; dust suppressants; carpets; and
carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA
has determined that each of these 10
items meets the necessary statutory
requirements—namely, that they are
being produced with biobased products
and that their procurement by procuring
agencies will carry out the following
objectives of section 9002:
• To increase demand for biobased
products, which would in turn increase
demand for agricultural commodities
that can serve as feedstocks for the
production of biobased products;
• To spur development of the
industrial base through value-added
agricultural processing and
manufacturing in rural communities;
and
• To enhance the nation’s energy
security by substituting biobased
products for products derived from
imported oil and natural gas.
Further, USDA has sufficient
information on these 10 items to
determine their availability and to
conduct the requisite analyses to
determine their biobased content and
their economic and technological
feasibility, including life cycle costs.
Mature Markets. Section 2902.5(c)(2)
of the final guidelines states that USDA
will not designate items for preferred
procurement that are determined to
have mature markets. Mature markets
are described as items that had
significant national market penetration
in 1972. USDA contacted
manufacturers, manufacturing
associations, and industry researchers to
determine if, in 1972, biobased products
had a significant market share within
any of the items proposed for
designation today. USDA found that
biobased products within none of the 10
items proposed for designation today
had a significant market share in 1972
and that, generally, the companies that
produce biobased products within these
proposed designated items have been in
business for only 10 to 20 years.
Overlap with EPA-Designated
Recovered Content Products. In today’s
proposed rule, two of the 10 items may
overlap with EPA-designated recovered
content products. These two items are:
stationary equipment hydraulic fluid
and carpets. For these two items, USDA
is requesting that certain information on
the qualifying biobased products be
made available by their manufacturers
to assist Federal agencies in determining
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
if an overlap exists between the
qualifying biobased product and the
applicable EPA-designated recovered
content product. As noted earlier in this
preamble, USDA is requesting
information on overlap situations to
further help procuring agencies make
informed decisions when faced with
purchasing a recovered content material
product or a biobased product. As this
information is developed, USDA will
make it available on the FB4P Web site.
Exemptions. When proposing items
for preferred procurement under the
FB4P, USDA will identify, on an itemby-item basis, items that would be
exempt from preferred procurement on
the basis of their use in products and
systems designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions.
USDA believes it is inappropriate to
apply the biobased purchasing
requirement to tactical equipment
unless the Department of Defense has
documented that these products can
meet the performance requirements for
such equipment and are available in
sufficient supply to meet domestic and
overseas deployment needs. After
evaluating these situations for each of
the 10 items being proposed for
designation, USDA is proposing to
exempt 2-cycle engine oils, stationary
hydraulic fluids, greases, and dust
suppressants from preferred
procurement under the FB4P when used
in combat or combat-related missions.
USDA is proposing an exemption for
all designated items when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support
equipment, because failure of such
items could lead to catastrophic
consequences. Many, if not all, items
that USDA is or is planning to designate
for preferred procurement are or will be
used in space applications. Frequently,
such applications used these items in
ways that are different from their more
‘‘conventional’’ use on Earth. It is
difficult, if not impossible, to forecast
what situations may occur when these
items are used in space and how they
will perform. Therefore, USDA believes
is it reasonable to limit the preferred
procurement program to items used in
more conventional applications and is
proposing to exempt all designated
items used in space applications from
the FB4P.
For each item being proposed for
exemption, the exemption does not
extend to contractors performing work
for DoD or NASA. For example, if a
contractor is producing a part for use on
the space shuttle, the metalworking
fluid the contractor uses to produce the
part should be biobased (provided it
meets the specifications for
metalworking). The exemption does
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
apply, however, if the product being
purchased by the contractor is for use in
combat or combat-related missions or
for use in space applications. For
example, if the part being produced by
the contractor would actually be part of
the space shuttle, then the exemption
applies.
Each of the 10 proposed designated
items are discussed in the following
sections.
1. 2-Cycle Engine Oils
2-Cycle engine oils are lubricant
products formulated to provide cleanburning lubrication, decreased spark
plug fouling, reduced deposit formation,
and reduced engine wear in 2-cycle
gasoline engines (commonly found in
lawn and garden equipment, small
marine craft, and personal recreational
vehicles such as motorcycles and
snowmobiles). Biobased 2-cycle engine
oils are typically formulated from
natural soy, canola, or other seed-based
oil feed stocks.
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in products
and systems designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions and
in spacecraft systems and launch
support equipment.
For biobased 2-cycle engine oils,
USDA identified 11 different
manufacturers producing 17 individual
biobased products. These 11
manufacturers do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased 2cycle engine oils, merely those
identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information
supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that many of these products
have been tested against multiple
industry performance standards and are
being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may
exist, applicable industry performance
standards against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified
by manufacturers of products within
this item, include:
• ASTM D445–04e2, Standard Test
Method for Kinematic Viscosity of
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and
the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity);
• ASTM D93–02a, Standard Test
Methods for Flash-Point by PenskyMartens Closed Cup Tester;
• ASTM D2896–05 Standard Test
Method for Base Number of Petroleum
Products by Potentiometric Perchloric
Acid Titration;
• ASTM D97–05, Standard Test
Method for Pour Point of Petroleum
Products;
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47595
• ASTM D2500–02e1, Standard Test
Method for Cloud Point of Petroleum
Products;
• ASTM D4682–87 (2002), Standard
Specification for Miscibility with
Gasoline and Fluidity of Two-StrokeCycle Gasoline Engine Lubricants;
• CEC–L–33–T82 is comparable to
ASTM 5864 and tests for
biodegradability;
• ASTM D2619, Standard Test
Method for Hydrolytic Stability of
Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle
Method);
• ASTM D892, Standard Test Method
for Foaming Characteristics of
Lubricating Oils;
• ASTM D665, Standard Test Method
for Rust-Preventing Characteristics of
Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of
Water;
• ASTM D2270, Standard Practice for
Calculating Viscosity Index From
Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 °C;
and
• International Organization for
Standardization #ISO GD Surface
chemical analysis—Glow discharge
optical emission spectrometry (GD–
OES).
USDA contacted procurement
officials with various procuring agencies
including the General Services
Administration, several offices within
the Defense Logistics Agency, the OFEE,
USDA Departmental Administration,
the National Park Service, EPA, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, and OMB in
an effort to gather information on the
purchases of 2-cycle engine oils and
products within the other nine items
proposed for designation today.
Communications with these officials
lead to the conclusion that obtaining
credible current usage statistics and
specific potential markets within the
Federal government for biobased
products within the 10 proposed
designated items is not possible at this
time. Most of the contacted officials
reported that procurement data are
reported in higher level groupings of
materials and supplies than the
proposed designated items. Also, the
purchasing of such materials as part of
contracted services and with individual
purchase cards used to purchase
products locally further obscures
credible data on purchases of specific
products.
USDA also investigated the Web site
https://www.fedbizopps.gov, a site which
lists Federal contract purchase
opportunities greater than $25,000. The
information provided on this Web site,
however, is for broad categories of
products rather than the specific types
of products that are included in today’s
rulemaking. Therefore, USDA has been
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47596
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
unable to obtain data on the amount of
2-cycle engine oils purchased by
procuring agencies. However, Federal
agencies routinely perform, or procure
contract services such as lawn
maintenance services, that utilize small
gas powered devices. Thus, they have a
need for 2-cycle engine oils and for
services that require the use of 2-cycle
engine oils. Designation of 2-cycle
engine oils will promote the use of
biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of biobased 2-cycle engine oils was
performed for three of the products
using the BEES analytical tool. Table 1
summarizes the BEES results for the
three 2-cycle engine oils. As seen in
Table 1, the environmental performance
score, which includes human health,
ranges from 0.0474 to 0.0661 points per
gallon (mixed with fuel and ready to
use). The environmental performance
score indicates the share of annual per
capita U.S. environmental impacts that
is attributable to one gallon (mixed with
fuel and ready to use) of the product,
expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. For
example, the total amount of criteria air
pollutants emitted in the U.S. in one
year was divided by the total U.S.
population to derive a ‘‘criteria air
pollutants per person value.’’ The
production and use of one gallon (mixed
with fuel and ready to use) of 2-cycle
engine oil sample A was estimated to
contribute 0.000002 percent of this
value.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR 2-CYCLE ENGINE OILS
2-Cycle engine oils
Parameters
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ...........................................................................
Acidification (5%) ...............................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ..................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) ...........................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ......................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ....................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) .........................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) .........................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ..............................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 ................................................................................
First Cost ...........................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ............................................................................................................................
Functional Unit ...................................................................................................................................
Sample B
Sample C
0.0474
0.0485
0.0661
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0008
0.0036
0.0036
0.0092
0.0017
0.0018
0.0035
0.0200
0.0204
0.0215
0.0060
0.0061
0.0080
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0080
0.0085
0.0103
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0079
0.0078
0.0122
0.0000
0.0001
0.0006
2.70
2.95
4.84
2.70
2.95
4.84
(3 )
(3 )
( 3)
1 gallon (mixed with fuel and ready to use)
1 Numbers
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
are per functional unit.
this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
2 Costs
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
3 For
When evaluating the information
presented in Table 1, as well as in the
subsequent tables presented in this
preamble, it should be noted that
comparisons of the environmental
performance scores are valid only
among products within a designated
item. Thus, comparisons of the scores
presented in Table 1 and the scores
presented in tables for other proposed
designated items are not meaningful.
The numbers in parentheses following
each of the 12 environmental impacts
listed in the tables in this preamble
indicate weighting factors. The
weighting factors represent the relative
importance of the 12 environmental
impacts, including human health
impacts, that contribute to the BEES
Environmental Score. They are derived
from lists of the relative importance of
these impacts developed by the EPA
Science Advisory Board for the purpose
of advising EPA as to how best to
allocate its limited resources among
environmental impact areas. Note that a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
lower Environmental Performance score
is better than a higher score.
Life cycle costs presented in the tables
in this preamble are per the appropriate
functional unit for the proposed
designated item. Future costs are
discounted to present value using the
OMB discount rate of 3.9 percent.
The life cycle costs of the submitted
2-cycle engine oils range from $2.70 to
$4.84 (present value dollars) per gallon
(mixed with fuel and ready to use).
Present value dollars presented in this
preamble represent the sum of all costs
associated with a product over a fixed
period of time, including any applicable
costs for purchase, installation,
replacement, operation, maintenance
and repair, and disposal. Present value
dollars presented in this preamble
reflect 2005 dollars. Dollars are
expressed in present value terms to
adjust for the effects of inflation. The
complete results of the BEES analysis,
extrapolated to the item level, for each
item proposed for designation in today’s
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposed rulemaking can be found at
https://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
2. Lip Care Products
Lip care products are personal care
products formulated to replenish the
moisture and/or prevent drying, thereby
promoting better skin health of the lips.
Biobased lip care products are typically
formulated from natural soy or other
seed-based oil feed stocks.
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in spacecraft
systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased lip care products, USDA
identified 10 different manufacturers
producing 28 individual biobased
products. These 10 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all
manufacturers of biobased lip care
products, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are typically tested against an
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47597
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
industry standard and are being used
commercially. While other applicable
performance standards may exist,
applicable industry performance
standards against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified
by manufacturers of products within
this item, include:
• United States Pharmacopeia (USP)
Stability Test.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government as
discussed in the section on 2-cycle
engine oils. These attempts were largely
unsuccessful. However, various Federal
agencies procure personal care products
for use by their employees. Thus, they
have a need for lip care products.
Designation of lip care products will
promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this
program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of biobased lip care products was
performed for two of the products using
the BEES analytical tool. Table 2
summarizes the BEES results for the two
lip care products. As seen in Table 2,
the environmental performance score,
which includes human health, ranges
from 0.1484 to 0.1778 points per case of
lip balm (i.e., 2,380 tubes). The
environmental performance score
indicates the share of annual per capita
U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to one case of the product,
expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR LIP CARE PRODUCTS
Lip care products
Parameters
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 .........................................................................................................
Acidification (5%) .............................................................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ..............................................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ................................................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) .........................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ..............................................................................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ....................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ..................................................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) .......................................................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ..............................................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .....................................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) .......................................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ............................................................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 2 ...............................................................................................................
First Cost .........................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ..........................................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .................................................................................................................................................................
Sample B
0.1484
0.0000
0.0007
0.0409
0.0157
0.0412
0.0136
0.0000
0.0128
0.0000
0.0000
0.0076
0.0159
1,071
1,071
(3)
one case (2,380
0.1778
0.0000
0.0010
0.0447
0.0101
0.0533
0.0182
0.0000
0.0180
0.0000
0.0000
0.0105
0.0220
2,356
2,356
(3 )
tubes)
1 Numbers
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
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.
2 Costs
The life cycle costs of the submitted
lip care products range from $1,071 to
$2,356 (present value dollars) per case
of lip balm.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
3. Biodegradable Films
Biodegradable films are used in
packaging, wrappings, linings, and other
similar applications and are capable of
meeting ASTM D6400 standards for
biodegradability. For the purpose of
defining this designated item,
biodegradable films do not include films
used for agricultural purposes (such as
films that would be used to cover fields)
and durable films. Durable films will be
proposed as a separate item for
preferred procurement.
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in spacecraft
systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased biodegradable films,
USDA identified 15 different
manufacturers producing 45 individual
products. These 15 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
manufacturers of biobased
biodegradable films, merely those
identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information
supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are
typically tested against one or more
industry performance standards and are
being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may
exist, applicable industry performance
standards against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified
by manufacturers of products within
this item, include:
• ASTM D6400, Standard
Specification for Compostable Plastics;
and
• Deutsches Institut fur Normung, the
German Institute for Standardization
#DIN V 54900 Standard for testing the
compostability of polymeric materials.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government as
discussed in the section on 2-cycle
engine oils. These attempts were largely
unsuccessful. However, Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
agencies routinely procure products,
such as trash can liners, leaf collection
bags, and packaging materials, that are
made from biodegradable films. In
addition, many Federal agencies
contract for services involving the use of
such products. Thus, they have a need
for products made from biodegradable
films and for services that use products
made from biodegradable films.
Designation of biodegradable films will
promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this
program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of biobased biodegradable films
was performed for two of the products
using the BEES analytical tool. Table 3
summarizes the BEES results for the two
biobased biodegradable films. As seen
in Table 3, the environmental
performance score, which includes
human health, ranges from 0.0150 to
0.5682 points per kilogram of
biodegradable film. The environmental
performance score indicates the share of
annual per capita U.S. environmental
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47598
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
impacts that is attributable to one
kilogram of the product, expressed in
100ths of 1 percent.
TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR BIODEGRADABLE FILMS
Parameters
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 .....................................................................................................
Acidification (5%) .........................................................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) .....................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ..............................................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) ...................................................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ..........................................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .................................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ...................................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 2 ...........................................................................................................
First Cost .....................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ......................................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................................................
Sample B
0.5682
0.0150
0.0001
0.0000
0.0046
0.0001
0.0277
0.0006
0.0330
0.0005
0.2052
0.0084
0.0717
0.0020
0.0000
0.0000
0.0893
0.0020
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1365
0.0012
0.0001
0.0002
6.60
8.17
6.60
8.17
(3)
( 3)
one kilogram
1 Numbers
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
are per functional unit.
this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
2 Costs
3 For
The life cycle cost of the submitted
biodegradable films was $6.60 to $8.17
(present value dollars) per kilogram of
biodegradable film.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
4. Stationary Equipment Hydraulic
Fluids
Stationary equipment hydraulic fluids
are hydraulic fluid products formulated
for use in the hydraulic systems of
stationary equipment. Products in this
item act as a mechanical power
transmission medium to replace mineral
oils and to provide wear, rust, and
oxidation protection for machine tools
and equipment. Biobased stationary
hydraulic fluids are typically
formulated from natural soy, canola, or
other seed oil-based feed stocks.
Qualifying products within this item
may overlap with the EPA-designated
recovered content product: Re-refined
lubricating oils.
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in products
and systems designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions and
in spacecraft systems and launch
support equipment.
For biobased stationary equipment
hydraulic fluids, USDA identified 20
different manufacturers producing 66
individual biobased products. These 20
manufacturers do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased
stationary equipment hydraulic fluids,
merely those identified during USDA
information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
manufacturers indicates that many of
these products have been tested against
multiple industry performance
standards and are being used
commercially. While other applicable
performance standards may exist,
applicable industry performance
standards against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified
by manufacturers of products within
this item, include:
• ASTM D1122–97a(2002), Standard
Test Method for Density or Relative
Density of Engine Coolant Concentrates
and Engine Coolants By The
Hydrometer;
• ASTM D1298–99e2, Standard Test
Method for Density, Relative Density
(Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of
Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum
Products by Hydrometer Method;
• ASTM D130–04, Standard Test
Method for Corrosiveness to Copper
from Petroleum Products by Copper
Strip Test;
• ASTM D1401–02, Standard Test
Method for Water Separability of
Petroleum Oils and Synthetic Fluids;
• ASTM D1500–04a, Standard Test
Method for ASTM Color of Petroleum
Products (ASTM Color Scale);
• ASTM D2266–01, Standard Test
Method for Wear Preventive
Characteristics of Lubricating Grease
(Four-Ball Method);
• ASTM D2270–04, Standard Practice
for Calculating Viscosity Index From
Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 °C;
• ASTM D2272–02, Standard Test
Method for Oxidation Stability of Steam
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Turbine Oils by Rotating Pressure
Vessel;
• ASTM D2532–03, Standard Test
Method for Viscosity and Viscosity
Change After Standing at Low
Temperature of Aircraft Turbine
Lubricants;
• ASTM D2619–95(2002)e1, Standard
Test Method for Hydrolytic Stability of
Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle
Method);
• ASTM D287–92(2000)e1, Standard
Test Method for API Gravity of Crude
Petroleum and Petroleum Products
(Hydrometer Method);
• ASTM D2983–04a, Standard Test
Method for Low-Temperature Viscosity
of Lubricants Measured by Brookfield
Viscometer;
• ASTM D4052–96(2002)e1, Standard
Test Method for Density and Relative
Density of Liquids by Digital Density
Meter;
• ASTM D4172–94(2004), Standard
Test Method for Wear Preventive
Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid
(Four-Ball Method);
• ASTM D445–04e2, Standard Test
Method for Kinematic Viscosity of
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and
the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity);
• ASTM D567–53(1955), Method for
Calculating Viscosity Index (Withdrawn
1966);
• ASTM D5864–00, Standard Test
Method for Determining Aerobic
Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or
Their Components; and
• ASTM D665–03, Standard Test
Method for Rust-Preventing
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil
in the Presence of Water.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government as
discussed in the section on 2-cycle
engine oils. These attempts were largely
unsuccessful. However, Federal
agencies routinely own and operate
stationary equipment with hydraulic
cylinders. In addition, many Federal
agencies contract for services involving
the use of such equipment. Thus, they
have a need for stationary equipment
hydraulic fluids and for services that
require the use of stationary equipment
hydraulic fluids. Designation of
stationary equipment hydraulic fluids
will promote the use of biobased
products, furthering the objectives of
this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids was performed for two of the
products using the BEES analytical tool.
47599
Table 4 summarizes the BEES results for
the two stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids. As seen in Table 4, the
environmental performance score,
which includes human health, ranges
from 0.0042 to 0.0524 points per gallon
of hydraulic fluid. The environmental
performance score indicates the share of
annual per capita U.S. environmental
impacts that is attributable to one gallon
of hydraulic fluid, expressed in 100ths
of 1 percent.
TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR STATIONARY EQUIPMENT HYDRAULIC FLUIDS
Stationary equipment
hydraulic fluids
Parameters
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 .....................................................................................................
Acidification (5%) .........................................................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) .....................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ..............................................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) ...................................................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ..........................................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .................................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ...................................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..........................................................................................................
First Cost .....................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ......................................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................................................
Sample B
0.0042
0.0524
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0012
0.0093
0.0002
0.0181
0.0012
0.0063
0.0008
0.0054
0.0000
0.0000
0.0004
0.0012
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0045
0.0002
0.0074
10.45
8.75
10.45
8.75
(3)
( 3)
one gallon
1 Numbers
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
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.
2 Costs
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
The life cycle cost of the submitted
stationary equipment hydraulic fluids
range from $8.75 to $10.45 (present
value dollars) per gallon of hydraulic
fluid.
5. Biodegradable Cutlery
Biodegradable cutlery is a group of
products that is used as hand-held,
disposable utensils designed for onetime use in eating food and that is
capable of meeting ASTM D5338
standard for biodegradability.
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in spacecraft
systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased biodegradable cutlery,
USDA identified 7 different
manufacturers producing 15 individual
biobased products. These 7
manufacturers do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased
biodegradable cutlery, merely those
identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information
supplied by these manufacturers
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
indicates that these products are
typically tested against one or more
industry performance standards and are
being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may
exist, applicable industry performance
standards against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified
by manufacturers of products within
this item, include:
• ASTM D5338, Standard Test
Method for Determining Aerobic
Biodegradation of Plastic Materials
Under Controlled Composting
Conditions;
• ASTM D6400, Standard
Specification for Compostable Plastics;
• D5209–92, Standard Test Method
for Determining the Aerobic
Biodegradation of Plastic Materials in
the Presence of Municipal Sewage
Sludge (Discontinued 2001); and
• Deutsches Institut fur Normung, the
German Institute for Standardization
#DIN CERTCO 54900 Standard for
testing the compostability of polymeric
materials.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government as
discussed in the section on 2-cycle
engine oils. These attempts were largely
unsuccessful. However, many Federal
agencies routinely perform, or procure
contract services to perform, food
preparation and distribution activities
that utilize disposable cutlery. Thus,
they have a need for disposable cutlery
and for services that require the use of
disposable cutlery. Designation of
biodegradable cutlery will promote the
use of biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of biobased biodegradable cutlery
was performed for two of the products
using the BEES analytical tool. Table 5
summarizes the BEES results for the two
biodegradable cutlery products. As seen
in Table 5, the environmental
performance score, which includes
human health, ranges from 0.0565 to
0.0690 points per 1000 pieces of cutlery.
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47600
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
The environmental performance score
indicates the share of annual per capita
U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to 1,000 pieces of cutlery,
expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR BIODEGRADABLE CUTLERY
Biodegradable cutlery
Parameters
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 .....................................................................................................
Acidification (5%) .........................................................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) .....................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ..............................................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) ...................................................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ..........................................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .................................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ...................................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..........................................................................................................
First Cost .....................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ......................................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................................................
Sample B
0.0565
0.0690
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0005
0.0113
0.0021
0.0052
0.0014
0.0236
0.0440
0.0056
0.0085
0.0000
0.0000
0.0065
0.0079
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0024
0.0035
0.0017
0.0011
32.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
(3)
( 3)
1,000 pieces of cutlery
1 Numbers
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
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.
2 Costs
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
The life cycle cost of the submitted
biodegradable cutlery was $32 present
value dollars) per 1,000 pieces of
cutlery.
6. Glass Cleaners
Glass cleaners are products designed
for use in cleaning glass surfaces such
as mirrors, car windows, and computer
monitors.
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in spacecraft
systems and launch support equipment.
Procuring agencies should note that,
as discussed in section II of this
preamble, not all biobased cleaning
products are ‘‘environmentally
preferable’’ to non-biobased products.
Unless cleaning products have been
formulated to contain no (or reduced
levels of) metals and toxic and
hazardous constituents, they can be
harmful to aquatic life, the environment,
or workers. When purchasing
environmentally preferable cleaning
products, Federal agencies must
compare the ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts
of the manufacture, use, and disposal of
both biobased and non-biobased
products.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
For biobased glass cleaners, USDA
identified 16 different manufacturers
producing 19 individual biobased
products. These 16 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all
manufacturers of biobased glass
cleaners, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are typically tested against one
relevant measure of performance and
are being used commercially. While
applicable performance standards and
other measures of performance may
exist, applicable industry performance
standards and relevant measures of
performance against which these
products have been typically tested, as
identified by manufacturers of products
within this item and by others, include:
• U.S. Navy, Navsea 6840 Surface
Ship (Non-Submarine) Authorized
Chemical Cleaning Products and
Dispensing Systems.
• Green Seal, GS–37, Environmental
Standard for General Purpose,
Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners
used for Industrial and Institutional
Purposes.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
within the Federal government as
discussed in the section on 2-cycle
engine oils. These attempts were largely
unsuccessful. However, Federal
agencies routinely procure cleaning and
maintenance services and materials,
including glass cleaners. Thus, they
have a need for glass cleaners and for
services that require the use of glass
cleaners. Designation of glass cleaners
will promote the use of biobased
products, furthering the objectives of
this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of biobased glass cleaners was
performed for two of the products using
the BEES analytical tool. Table 6
summarizes the BEES results for the two
glass cleaners. As seen in Table 6, the
environmental performance score,
which includes human health, ranges
from 0.08787 to 0.9818 points per 1,000
gallons of biobased glass cleaner,
diluted and ready to use. The
environmental performance score
indicates the share of annual per capita
U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to 1,000 gallons of glass
cleaner, diluted and ready to use,
expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
47601
TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR GLASS CLEANERS
Glass cleaners
Parameters
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 .....................................................................................................
Acidification (5%) .........................................................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) .....................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ..............................................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) ...................................................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ..........................................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .................................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ...................................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..........................................................................................................
First Cost .....................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ......................................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................................................
Sample B
0.0878
0.9818
0.0000
0.0001
0.0008
0.0064
0.0092
0.0578
0.0021
0.0124
0.0310
0.3953
0.0078
0.1317
0.0000
0.0000
0.0108
0.1840
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0042
0.0492
0.0219
0.1449
89.06
983.00
89.06
983.00
(3)
( 3)
1,000 gallons, diluted and
ready to use.
1 Numbers
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
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.
2 Costs
The life cycle cost of the submitted
glass cleaners range from $89 to $983
(present value dollars) per 1,000 gallons
of glass cleaner, diluted and ready to
use.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
7. Greases
Greases are lubricants composed of
oils thickened with soaps or other
thickeners to a semisolid or solid
consistency. Grease composition (i.e.,
greases made with clay thickeners
versus those made with metallic soap
thickeners) must be considered carefully
because of potential incompatibility
when mixed. This can occur between
two different biobased greases, between
two different non-biobased (petroleum)
greases, and between a biobased grease
and a petroleum-based grease.
Machinery lubricated with one
particular type of grease must be purged
properly before lubrication with an
incompatible grease.
Greases are used in many different
applications. Based on the information
acquired, USDA is proposing to
subcategorize this item into four
specified-use subcategories and one
‘‘not elsewhere specified’’ subcategory
as follows: Food grade greases,
multipurpose greases, rail track greases,
fifth wheel (coupling plate between the
tractor trailer truck and the semi-trailer)
greases, and greases that do not fit any
of the other four subcategories. USDA
believes this is reasonable because of
the varying conditions that each of the
four specified-use subcategories require
of greases in order to perform
satisfactorily and in accordance with
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
any regulatory requirements (e.g., for
food grade greases).
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in products
and systems designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions and
in spacecraft systems and launch
support equipment.
For biobased greases, USDA identified
18 different manufacturers producing 67
individual biobased products. For the
five subcategories of greases for which
USDA is proposing designation, USDA
identified at least two manufacturers of
each type. The 18 manufacturers total,
and those identified for each
subcategory of grease, do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased
greases, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that several of
these products have been tested against
multiple industry performance
standards and are being used
commercially. While other applicable
performance standards may exist,
applicable industry performance
standards against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified
by manufacturers of products within
this item, include:
• ASTM D1264–03e1, Standard Test
Method for Determining the Water
Washout Characteristics of Lubricating
Greases;
• ASTM D127–05, Standard Test
Method for Drop Melting Point of
Petroleum Wax, Including Petrolatum;
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• ASTM D130–04, Standard Test
Method for Corrosiveness to Copper
from Petroleum Products by Copper
Strip Test;
• ASTM D1742–94 (2000)e1,
Standard Test Method for Oil
Separation from Lubricating Grease
During Storage;
• ASTM D1743–05a, Standard Test
Method for Determining Corrosion
Preventive Properties of Lubricating
Greases;
• ASTM D1748–02, Standard Test
Method for Rust Protection by Metal
Preservatives in the Humidity Cabinet;
• ASTM D1831–00e1, Standard Test
Method for Roll Stability of Lubricating
Grease;
• ASTM D217–02, Standard Test
Methods for Cone Penetration of
Lubricating Grease;
• ASTM D2265–00, Standard Test
Method for Dropping Point of
Lubricating Grease Over Wide
Temperature Range;
• ASTM D2266–01, Standard Test
Method for Wear Preventive
Characteristics of Lubricating Grease
(Four-Ball Method);
• ASTM D2270–04, Standard Practice
for Calculating Viscosity Index From
Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 °C;
• ASTM D2509–03, Standard Test
Method for Measurement of LoadCarrying Capacity of Lubricating Grease
(Timken Method);
• ASTM D2569–97 (2002), Standard
Test Method for Distillation of Pitch;
• ASTM D2596–97 (2002)e1,
Standard Test Method for Measurement
of Extreme-Pressure Properties of
Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method);
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47602
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
• ASTM D445–04e2, Standard Test
Method for Kinematic Viscosity of
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and
the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity);
• ASTM D566–02, Standard Test
Method for Dropping Point of
Lubricating Grease;
• ASTM D5864–00, Standard Test
Method for Determining Aerobic
Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or
Their Components;
• ASTM D6184–98, Standard Test
Method for Oil Separation from
Lubricating Grease (Conical Sieve
Method);
• ASTM D92–05a, Standard Test
Method for Flash and Fire Points by
Cleveland Open Cup Tester;
• ASTM D942–02, Standard Test
Method for Oxidation Stability of
Lubricating Greases by the Oxygen
Bomb Method;
• ASTM D97–05, Standard Test
Method for Pour Point of Petroleum
Products;
• Co-ordinating European Council
#CEC–L–33–A–93 Test to predict the
potential biodegradation of mineral oilbased lubricants in soil; and
• National Lubricating Grease
Institute #NLGI 2 Greases classified
according to their consistency range as
measured by the worked penetration at
25 °C (77 °C): 265 to 295.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government as
discussed in the section on 2-cycle
engine oils. These attempts were largely
unsuccessful. However, Federal
agencies routinely operate, or procure
contract services to operate, the types of
machinery and equipment that require
the use of greases. Thus, they have a
need for greases and for services that
require the use of greases. Designation
of greases will promote the use of
biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of biobased greases was performed
for two of the products using the BEES
analytical tool. Table 7 summarizes the
BEES results for the two greases. As
seen in Table 7, the environmental
performance score, which includes
human health, ranges from 0.0281 to
0.0451 points per gallon of grease. The
environmental performance score
indicates the share of annual per capita
U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to one gallon of grease,
expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR GREASES
Greases
Parameters
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 .....................................................................................................
Acidification (5%) .........................................................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) .....................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ..............................................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) ...................................................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ..........................................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .................................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ...................................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..........................................................................................................
First Cost .....................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ......................................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................................................
Sample B
0.0281
0.0451
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0002
0.0036
0.0103
0.0026
0.0126
0.0105
0.0067
0.0042
0.0046
0.0000
0.0000
0.0035
0.0022
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0022
0.0034
0.0013
0.0051
14.84
52.03
14.84
52.03
(3)
( 3)
one gallon
1 Numbers
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
are per functional unit.
this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
2 Costs
3 For
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
The life cycle cost of the submitted
greases range from $14.84 to $52.03
(present value dollars) per gallon of
grease.
8. Dust Suppressants
Dust suppressants are products
formulated to reduce or eliminate the
spread of dust associated with gravel
roads, dirt parking lots, or similar
sources of dust, and include products
used in equivalent indoor applications
(such as in indoor arenas where dirt
parking lots may be found). This item
does not cover products designed for
indoor uses (such as the application of
a dust suppressant to a dust mop),
except as noted above.
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in products
and systems designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions and
in spacecraft systems and launch
support equipment.
For biobased dust suppressants,
USDA identified 12 different
manufacturers producing 13 individual
biobased products. These 12
manufacturers do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased
dust suppressants, merely those
identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information
supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are
typically tested against one or more
industry performance standards and are
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may
exist, applicable industry performance
standards against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified
by manufacturers of products within
this item, include:
• Missouri State Specifications; and
• Water runoff quality test (Minnesota
DOT).
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government as
discussed in the section on 2-cycle
engine oils. These attempts were largely
unsuccessful. However, Federal
agencies routinely use, or procure
contract services that use, dust
suppressants in construction, forestry,
transportation, and maintenance
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
activities. Thus, they have a need for
dust suppressants and for services that
require the use of dust suppressants.
Designation of dust suppressants will
promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this
program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of biobased dust suppressants was
performed for two of the products using
the BEES analytical tool. Table 8
summarizes the BEES results for the two
dust suppressants. As seen in Table 8,
the environmental performance score,
which includes human health, ranges
from 0.0335 to 0.7545 points per 1,000
47603
square feet of application. The
environmental performance score
indicates the share of annual per capita
U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to 1,000 square feet of
application, expressed in 100ths of 1
percent.
TABLE 8.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR DUST SUPPRESSANTS
Dust suppressants
Parameters
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 .....................................................................................................
Acidification (5%) .........................................................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) .....................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ..............................................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) ...................................................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ..........................................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .................................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ...................................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..........................................................................................................
First Cost .....................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ......................................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................................................
Sample B
0.0335
0.7545
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0052
0.0194
0.1417
0.0015
0.1238
0.0048
0.2064
0.0024
0.0965
0.0000
0.0000
0.0025
0.0737
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0010
0.0421
0.0017
0.0651
7.20
47.00
7.20
47.00
(3)
( 3)
1,000 square feet of
application.
1 Numbers
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
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.
2 Costs
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
The life cycle cost of the submitted
dust suppressants range from $7.20 to
$47 (present value dollars) per 1,000
square feet of application.
9. Carpets
Carpets are floor coverings composed
of woven fibers, with a backing.
Qualifying products within this item
may overlap with the EPA-designated
recovered content product: Carpet
(polyester).
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in spacecraft
systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased carpets, USDA identified
7 different manufacturers producing 19
individual biobased products. These 7
manufacturers do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased
carpets, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are typically tested against one
or more industry performance standards
and are being used commercially. While
other applicable performance standards
may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of
products within this item, include:
• Aachen Test, ISO/EN Dimensional
Stability: Machine-made textile floor
coverings—Determination of
dimensional changes due to the effects
of varied water and heat conditions;
• American Association of Textile
Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness
AATCC 165 Crocking: Textile Floor
Coverings—AATCC Crockmeter
Method;
• American Association of Textile
Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness
AATCC 164 Oxides of Nitrogen in the
Atmosphere under High Humidities;
• American Association of Textile
Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness
AATCC 129 Ozone in the Atmosphere
under High Humidities;
• American Association of Textile
Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness
AATCC 138 Cleaning: Washing of
Textile Floor Coverings;
• American Association of Textile
Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness
AATCC 107 Water;
• ASTM D1335, Standard Test
Method for Tuft Bind of Pile Yarn Floor
Coverings; and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• ASTM D3936, Standard Test
Method for Resistance to Delamination
of the Secondary Backing of Pile Yarn
Floor Covering.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government as
discussed in the section on 2-cycle
engine oils. USDA found that in fiscal
year 2005 approximately $34 million of
carpet were purchased on GSA
schedule, of which $5.2 million met the
recycled content as defined by
Executive Order 13101. While it is
unknown what percentage of total
carpet purchased by the Federal
government the $34 million represents,
it is clear that Federal agencies purchase
and install large volumes of carpets.
Designation of carpets, therefore, will
promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this
program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of biobased carpets was performed
for two of the products using the BEES
analytical tool. Table 9 summarizes the
BEES results for the two carpets. As
seen in Table 9, the environmental
performance score, which includes
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47604
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
human health, was 0.2429 per 1 square
yard of carpet over 50 years for both
samples. The environmental
performance score indicates the share of
annual per capita U.S. environmental
impacts that is attributable to one square
yard of carpet over 50 years, expressed
in 100ths of 1 percent.
TABLE 9.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR CARPETS
Carpets
Parameters
Sample A
Sample B
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 .............................................................................................................
Acidification (5%) .................................................................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ..................................................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ....................................................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) .............................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ........................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ......................................................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) ...........................................................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ..................................................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .........................................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ................................................................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..................................................................................................................
First Cost .............................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ..............................................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .....................................................................................................................................................................
0.2429
0.0000
0.0014
0.0165
0.0112
0.1028
0.0240
0.0000
0.0278
0.0377
0.0000
0.0079
0.0136
39.22
20.00
19.22
one square yard
over 50 years
1 Numbers
2 Costs
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
are per functional unit.
The life cycle cost of both submitted
carpets was $39.22 per square yard of
carpet over 50 years.
10. Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners
Carpet and upholstery cleaners are
products used to clean carpets and
upholstery, through a dry or wet
process, found in locations such as
houses, cars, and workplaces. As
proposed, this item does not include
spot cleaners.
For the reasons cited earlier in this
notice, USDA is proposing to exempt
this item from preferred procurement
under the FB4P when used in spacecraft
systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased carpet and upholstery
cleaners, USDA identified 13 different
manufacturers producing 17 individual
biobased products. These 13
manufacturers do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased
carpet and upholstery cleaners, merely
those identified during USDA
information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are typically tested against one
relevant measure of performance and
are being used commercially. While
other relevant measurements of
performance may exist, applicable
relevant measurements of performance
against which these products have been
typically tested, as identified by
manufacturers of products within this
item, include:
• U.S. Navy, Navsea 6840 Surface
Ship (Non-Submarine) Authorized
Chemical Cleaning Products and
Dispensing Systems.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government as
discussed in the section on 2-cycle
engine oils. These attempts were largely
unsuccessful. However, Federal
agencies routinely perform, and procure
services that perform, the types of
cleaning activities that utilize carpet
and upholstery cleaners. Thus, they
have a need for carpet and upholstery
cleaners and for services that require the
use of carpet and upholstery cleaners.
Designation of carpet and upholstery
cleaners will promote the use of
biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life cycle
costs of biobased carpet and upholstery
cleaners was performed for two of the
products using the BEES analytical tool.
Table 10 summarizes the BEES results
for the two carpet and upholstery
cleaners. As seen in Table 10, the
environmental performance score,
which includes human health, ranges
from 0.0898 to 0.1542 points per 1,000
square feet of carpet cleaned. The
environmental performance score
indicates the share of annual per capita
U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to 1,000 square feet of
carpet cleaned, expressed in 100ths of 1
percent.
TABLE 10.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY CLEANERS
Carpet and upholstery
cleaners
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Parameters
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 .....................................................................................................
Acidification (5%) .........................................................................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ..........................................................................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) .....................................................................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ..........................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:04 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
0.0898
0.0000
0.0007
0.0069
0.0007
0.0330
Sample B
0.1542
0.0000
0.0015
0.0124
0.0016
0.0733
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
47605
TABLE 10.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY CLEANERS—Continued
Carpet and upholstery
cleaners
Parameters
Sample A
Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) ..............................................................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) ...................................................................................................................................................
Indoor Air (11%) ..........................................................................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) .................................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ...................................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 2 ...........................................................................................................
First Cost .....................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ......................................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................................................
Sample B
0.0101
0.0233
0.0000
0.0000
0.0164
0.0370
0.0196
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0024
0.0049
0.0000
0.0002
20.29
4.55
20.29
4.55
(3)
( 3)
1,000 square feet of carpet
cleaned.
1 Numbers
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
are per functional unit.
this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
2 Costs
3 For
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
The life cycle cost of the submitted
carpet and upholstery cleaners range
from $4.55 to $20.29 (present value
dollars) per 1,000 square feet of carpet
cleaned. Based on information supplied
by the manufacturers, USDA has
confirmed that the qualifying biobased
content in each of the samples tested is
derived, in whole or in significant part,
from renewable domestic agricultural or
forestry material.
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
Section 9002(e)(1)(C) directs USDA to
recommend minimum biobased content
levels where appropriate. In today’s
proposed rulemaking, USDA is
proposing minimum biobased product
content for each of the 10 items
proposed for designation based on
information currently available to
USDA.
As discussed in Section IV.A of this
preamble, USDA relied entirely on
manufacturers’ voluntary submission of
samples to support the proposed
designation of these 10 items. The data
presented in the following paragraphs
are the test results from all of the
product samples that were submitted for
analysis. It is the responsibility of the
manufacturers to ‘‘self-certify’’ that each
product being offered as a biobased
product for preferred procurement
contains qualifying feedstock. As
contained in the Guidelines, USDA will
consider qualifying feedstocks for
biobased products originating in
‘‘designated countries’’ (as that term is
defined in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) § 25.003)) as well as
from the United States. USDA will
develop a monitoring process for these
self-certifications to ensure
manufacturers are using qualifying
feedstocks. If misrepresentations are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
found, USDA will remove the subject
biobased product from the preferred
procurement program and may take
further actions as deemed appropriate.
As a result of public comments
received on the first designated items
rulemaking proposal, USDA decided to
account for the slight imprecision in the
analytical method used to determine
biobased content of products when
establishing the minimum biobased
content. Thus, rather than establishing
the minimum biobased content for an
item at the tested biobased content of
the product selected as the basis for the
minimum value, USDA is establishing
the minimum biobased content at a
level 3 percentage points less than the
tested value. USDA believes that this
adjustment is appropriate to account for
the expected variations in analytical
results.
USDA has determined that setting a
minimum biobased content for
designated items is appropriate.
Establishing a minimum biobased
content will encourage competition
among manufacturers to develop
products with higher biobased contents
and will prevent products with de
minimus biobased content from being
purchased as a means of satisfying the
requirements of section 9002. USDA
believes that it is in the best interest of
the preferred procurement program for
minimum biobased contents to be set at
levels that will realistically allow
products to possess the necessary
performance attributes and allow them
to compete with non-biobased products
in performance and economics. Setting
the minimum biobased content for an
item at a level met by several of the
tested products will provide more
products from which procurement
officials may choose, will encourage the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
most widespread usage of biobased
products by procuring agencies, and is
expected to accomplish the objectives of
section 9002. Procuring agencies are
encouraged to seek products with the
highest biobased content that is
practicable in all 10 of the proposed
designated items.
The following paragraphs summarize
the information that USDA used to
propose minimum biobased contents
within each proposed designated item.
1. 2-Cycle Engine Oils
Seven of the 17 biobased 2-cycle
engine oils identified have been tested
for biobased content using ASTM
D6866.1 The biobased content of these
7 samples ranged from 6 percent to 77
percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 7 percent, based on the product with
a tested biobased content of 10 percent.
USDA evaluated the manufacturer’s
performance claims for the product
whose biobased content was tested at 6
percent. The available information for
this product did not indicate any unique
performance characteristics or features
not found in products with a higher
biobased content. Therefore, USDA
dropped this product from
consideration in setting the minimum
biobased content for the item. USDA
found that the product with 10 percent
biobased content, the second-lowest
tested value, was formulated to meet the
1 ASTM D6866 (Standard Test Methods for
Determining the Biobased Content of Natural Range
Materials Using Radiocarbon and Isotope Ratio
Mass Spectrometry Analysis) is used to distinguish
between carbon from fossil resources (non-biobased
carbon) and carbon from renewable sources
(biobased carbon). The biobased content is
expressed as the percentage of total carbon that is
biobased carbon.
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47606
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
specifications of Japanese small engine
manufacturers. None of the other
products tested made this claim or
indicated that they had been tested
using the Japanese performance
standards. Because of the predominance
of Japanese engines in the marketplace,
USDA believes that establishing a
minimum biobased content for this item
based on a product formulated to meet
their performance specifications is
reasonable. To account for possible
variability in the results of ASTM
D6866, as discussed earlier, the tested
10 percent value was then adjusted to 7
percent.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
2. Lip Care Products
Two of the 28 available biobased lip
care products have been tested for
biobased content using ASTM D6866.
The biobased content of these two lip
care products was 85 percent and 88
percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 82 percent, based on the product with
a tested biobased content of 85 percent.
While no differences were found in the
performance of the two products tested,
USDA believes that the slight difference
between the biobased content of two
products tested is insignificant. Also,
establishing the minimum biobased
content for the item based on the lower
tested value offers procurement agents
more choice in selecting products to
purchase.
3. Biodegradable Films
Thirteen of the 45 biobased
biodegradable films identified have
been tested for biobased content using
ASTM D6866. The biobased content of
these 13 biodegradable films ranged
from 1 percent to 96 percent. USDA will
not establish the minimum biobased
content for a designated item based on
products with essentially no biobased
content; that is, in this instance, on
either the product with a tested
biobased content of 1 percent or the
product with a tested biobased content
of 2 percent. The biobased content of
the remaining 11 products ranged from
25 percent to 96 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 22 percent, based on the product with
a tested biobased content of 25 percent.
The manufacturer of the product with
the biobased content of 25 percent also
manufactures biodegradable films with
48 and 52 percent biobased content. The
product with 25 percent biobased
content has a significantly longer shelflife than the other products. Because
Federal procuring agencies are likely to
purchase biodegradable films in larger
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
quantities than the average consumer,
USDA believes that shelf-life is a key
performance criteria for establishing the
minimum biobased content of this item.
Therefore, USDA is proposing to
establish the minimum biobased content
for this item based on this particular
product. Furthermore, establishing the
minimum biobased content level at this
level will offer procuring agencies more
choices in selecting products to
purchase and will encourage the most
widespread usage of biobased products
by procuring agencies.
4. Stationary Equipment Hydraulic
Fluids
Twenty two of the 66 biobased
stationary equipment hydraulic fluids
identified have been tested for biobased
content using ASTM D6866. The
biobased content of these 22 biobased
stationary equipment hydraulic fluids
ranged from 49 percent to 100 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 46 percent, based on the product with
a tested biobased content of 49.
Stationary equipment hydraulic fluids
can be formulated to meet a wide range
of demands. Because of the resulting
range in product characteristics, USDA
is proposing to set the minimum
biobased content at a level that will
include all of the products sampled.
USDA believes that it is in the best
interest of the preferred procurement
program for minimum biobased
contents to be set at levels that will
realistically allow products to possess
the necessary performance attributes
and allow them to compete with nonbiobased products in performance and
economics. Furthermore, setting the
minimum biobased content level based
on the lowest level found among the
sampled products will offer procuring
agencies more choices in selecting
products to purchase and will
encourage the most widespread usage of
biobased products by procuring
agencies.
5. Biodegradable Cutlery
Five of the 15 biobased biodegradable
cutlery identified have been tested for
biobased content using ASTM D6866.
The biobased contents of these five
biobased biodegradable products ranged
from 36 percent to 100 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 33 percent, based on the product with
a tested biobased content of 36 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum
biobased content at a level that will
include all of the products sampled.
USDA believes that it is in the best
interest of the preferred procurement
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 nonbiobased products in performance and
economics. Furthermore, setting the
minimum biobased content level based
on the lowest level found among the
sampled products will offer procuring
agencies more choices in selecting
products to purchase and will
encourage the most widespread usage of
biobased products by procuring
agencies.
6. Glass Cleaners
Seven of the 19 biobased glass
cleaners identified have been tested for
biobased content using ASTM D6866.
The biobased contents of these glass
cleaners ranged from 0 percent to 67
percent. The products with tested
biobased contents of 0 and 1 percent
were not considered in establishing the
minimum biobased content for this
proposed designated item. The one
product whose tested biobased content
was 0 percent was eliminated from
consideration because, according to the
results of the analysis, the product
would not be considered a biobased
product. Further, USDA will not
establish the minimum biobased content
for a designated item based on products
with essentially no biobased content;
that is, in this instance on a product
with a tested biobased content of 1
percent. The biobased content of the
remaining five products ranged from 26
percent to 67 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 23 percent, based on the product with
a tested biobased content of 26 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum
biobased content at a level that will
include all of the products sampled.
USDA believes that it is in the best
interest of the preferred procurement
program for minimum biobased
contents to be set at levels that will
realistically allow products to possess
the necessary performance attributes
and allow them to compete with nonbiobased products in performance and
economics. Furthermore, setting the
minimum biobased content level based
on the lowest level found among the
sampled products will offer procuring
agencies more choices in selecting
products to purchase and will
encourage the most widespread usage of
biobased products by procuring
agencies.
7. Greases
Eighteen of the 67 biobased greases
identified have been tested for biobased
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
content using ASTM D6866. For the five
proposed subcategories of greases, the
results obtained and the proposed
minimum biobased contents are
discussed in the following paragraphs
by proposed grease subcategory.
Food grade greases. The biobased
content was measured for three food
grade greases. The tested biobased
contents were 45, 62, and 95 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for food
grade greases at 42 percent, based on the
product with a tested biobased content
of 45 percent. USDA believes that it is
in the best interest of the preferred
procurement program for minimum
biobased contents to be set at levels that
will realistically allow products to
possess the necessary performance
attributes and allow them to compete
with non-biobased products in
performance and economics. Setting the
minimum biobased content level based
on the lowest level found among the
sampled products will offer procuring
agencies more choices in selecting
products to purchase and will
encourage the most widespread usage of
biobased products by procuring
agencies.
Multipurpose greases. The biobased
content was measured for three
multipurpose greases. The tested
biobased contents were 76, 76, and 76
percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for food
grade greases at 73 percent, based on the
tested biobased content of 76 percent for
all three multipurpose greases.
Rail track greases. The biobased
content was measured for six rail track
greases. The tested biobased contents
ranged from 33 percent to 66 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for rail track
greases at 30 percent, based on the two
products with a tested biobased content
of 33 percent. The range in biobased
contents is due to formulations
necessary to meet seasonal
requirements. Because one would not
use a rail track grease formulated for
winter use in the summer (and viceversa), USDA does not believe it is
necessary to subdivide this item.
Instead, USDA believes that it is
appropriate to set a single minimum
biobased content and is proposing to set
it based on the lowest tested biobased
content. By doing so, USDA believes
that it is setting a minimum biobased
content level that will realistically allow
products to possess the necessary
performance attributes and allow them
to compete with non-biobased products
in performance and economics, which is
in the best interests of this program.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:05 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
Further, setting the minimum biobased
content level based on the lowest level
found among the sampled products will
offer procuring agencies more choices in
selecting products to purchase and will
encourage the most widespread usage of
biobased products by procuring
agencies.
Truck greases. The biobased content
was measured for three truck greases.
The tested biobased contents were 75,
77, and 77 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for truck
greases at 72 percent, based on the
product with a tested biobased content
of 77 percent. USDA believes that the
slight difference between the biobased
content of three products tested is
insignificant, and establishing the
minimum biobased content for the item
based on the lower tested value offers
procurement agents more choice in
selecting truck grease products to
purchase.
Greases not elsewhere specified. The
biobased content was measured for four
greases that did not fit any of the four
specified subcategories. The tested
biobased contents ranged from 78
percent to 96 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for greases
not elsewhere specified at 75 percent,
based on the product with a tested
biobased content of 78 percent. Because
of the nature of this subcategory, grease
products within it will be formulated to
meet a wide range of demands. Because
of the resulting range in product
characteristics, USDA is proposing to
set the minimum biobased content at a
level that will include all of these
‘‘other’’ grease products sampled. USDA
believes that it is in the best interest of
the preferred procurement program for
minimum biobased contents to be set at
levels that will realistically allow
products to possess the necessary
performance attributes and allow these
‘‘other’’ grease products to compete with
non-biobased products in performance
and economics. Furthermore, setting the
minimum biobased content level based
on the lowest level found among the
sampled ‘‘other’’ grease products will
offer procuring agencies more choices in
selecting products to purchase and will
encourage the most widespread usage of
biobased products by procuring
agencies.
8. Dust Suppressants
Five of the 13 biobased dust
suppressants identified have been tested
for biobased content using ASTM
D6866. The biobased contents of these
5 biobased dust suppressants ranged
from 69 percent to 100 percent.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47607
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 66 percent, based on the product with
a tested biobased content of 69 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum
biobased content at a level that will
include all of the products sampled,
including the product with 69 percent
biobased content, which is the only one
of the products that is formulated
specifically as a concentrate to be mixed
with water. USDA believes that it is in
the best interest of the preferred
procurement program for minimum
biobased contents to be set at levels that
will realistically allow products to
possess the necessary performance
attributes and allow them to compete
with non-biobased products in
performance and economics.
Furthermore, setting the minimum
biobased content level based on the
lowest level found among the sampled
products will offer procuring agencies
more choices in selecting products to
purchase and will encourage the most
widespread usage of biobased products
by procuring agencies.
9. Carpet
Nine of the 19 biobased carpet
identified have been tested for biobased
content using ASTM D6866. The testing
was conducted on the entire carpet
samples (i.e., face and backing). The
biobased content of these nine biobased
carpets ranged from 0 percent to 37
percent. The two products whose tested
biobased content was 0 percent was
eliminated from consideration because,
according to the results of the analysis,
the product would not be considered a
biobased product. The biobased content
of the remaining 7 products ranged from
10 percent to 37 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 7 percent, based on the product with
a tested biobased content of 10 percent.
For each of the carpet samples tested,
the biobased component of the carpets
sampled was the material used as the
carpet backing. The sampled products
with a higher biobased content contain
similar biobased materials, but had
higher biobased contents because they
simply had a thicker layer of the
backing material. Thus, those products
with the lower biobased content are
likely to be less costly and more
competitive in markets such as the
commercial carpet segment. USDA is
proposing to set the minimum biobased
content at a level that will include all
of the products sampled. USDA believes
that it is in the best interest of the
preferred procurement program for
minimum biobased contents to be set at
levels that will realistically allow
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47608
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
products to possess the necessary
performance attributes and allow them
to compete with non-biobased products
in performance and economics.
Furthermore, setting the minimum
biobased content level based on the
lowest level found among the sampled
products also will provide more
products from which procurement
officials may choose and will encourage
the most widespread usage of biobased
products by procuring agencies.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
10. Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners
Ten of the 17 biobased carpet and
upholstery cleaners identified have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM
D6866. The biobased content of these 10
biobased carpet and upholstery cleaners
ranged from 10 percent to 99 percent.
Two products, with biobased contents
of 10 and 15 percent are characterized
by their manufacturers as ‘‘spot
removers.’’ USDA did not consider
these products in establishing the
minimum biobased content because this
designated item is intended to include
those products formulated for use in
larger scale cleaning operations than
would be typical for ‘‘spot removers.’’
The biobased content of the eight
remaining products ranged from 37
percent to 99 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 34 percent, based on the product with
a biobased content of 37 percent. USDA
is proposing to set the minimum
biobased content at a level that will
include all of the products sampled.
USDA believes that it is in the best
interest of the preferred procurement
program for minimum biobased
contents to be set at levels that will
realistically allow products to possess
the necessary performance attributes
and allow them to compete with nonbiobased products in performance and
economics. Furthermore, setting the
minimum biobased content level based
on the lowest level found among the
sampled products will offer procuring
agencies more choices in selecting
products to purchase and will
encourage the most widespread usage of
biobased products by procuring
agencies.
D. Effective Date for Procurement
Preference and Incorporation Into
Specifications
USDA intends for the final rule to
take effect thirty (30) days after
publication of the final rule. However,
under the terms of the proposed rule,
procuring agencies would have a oneyear transition period, starting from the
date of publication of the final rule,
before the procurement preference for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
biobased products within a designated
item would take effect.
USDA proposes a one-year period
before the procurement preferences
would take effect based on an
understanding that Federal agencies
will need time to incorporate the
preferences into procurement
documents and to revise existing
standardized specifications. Section
9002(d) of FSRIA and section 2902(c) of
7 CFR part 2902 explicitly acknowledge
the latter need for Federal agencies to
have sufficient time to revise the
affected specifications to give preference
to biobased products when purchasing
the designated items. Procuring agencies
will need time to evaluate the economic
and technological feasibility of the
available biobased products for their
agency-specific uses and for compliance
with agency-specific requirements,
including manufacturers’ warranties for
machinery in which the biobased
products would be used.
By the time these items are
promulgated for designation, Federal
agencies will have had a minimum of 18
months (from when these designated
items were proposed), and much longer
considering when the Guidelines were
first proposed and these requirements
were first laid out, to implement these
requirements.
For these reasons, USDA proposes
that the mandatory preference for
biobased products under the designated
items take effect one year after
promulgation of the final rule. The oneyear period provides these agencies
with ample time to evaluate the
economic and technological feasibility
of biobased products for a specific use
and to revise the specifications
accordingly. However, some agencies
may be able to complete these processes
more expeditiously, and not all uses
will require extensive analysis or
revision of existing specifications.
Although it is allowing up to one year,
USDA encourages procuring agencies to
implement the procurement preferences
as early as practicable for procurement
actions involving any of the designated
items.
V. Where Can Agencies Get More
Information on These USDA-Designated
Items?
Once the item designations in today’s
proposal become final, manufacturers
and vendors voluntarily may post
information on specific products,
including product and contact
information, on the USDA biobased
products Web site https://
www.biobased.oce.usda.gov. USDA will
periodically audit the information
displayed on the Web site and, where
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
questions arise, contact the
manufacturer or vendor to verify,
correct, or remove incorrect or out-ofdate information. Procuring agencies
should contact the manufacturers and
vendors directly to discuss specific
needs and to obtain detailed
information on the availability and
prices of biobased products meeting
those needs.
By accessing the Web site, agencies
will also be able to obtain the
voluntarily-posted information on each
product concerning: Relative price; life
cycle costs; hot links directly to a
manufacturer’s or vendor’s Web site (if
available); performance standards
(industry, government, military, ASTM/
ISO) that the product has been tested
against; and environmental and public
health information from the BEES
analysis or the alternative analysis
embedded in the ASTM Standard
D7075, ‘‘Standard Practice for
Evaluating and Reporting
Environmental Performance of Biobased
Products.’’
USDA has linked its Web site to
DoD’s list of specifications and
standards, which can be used as
guidance when procuring products. To
access this list, go to USDA’s FB4P Web
site and click on the ‘‘Product
Submission’’ tab and look for the DoD
Specifications link.
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866 requires
agencies to determine whether a
regulatory action is ‘‘significant.’’ The
Order defines a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may: ‘‘(1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect, in a material
way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) Create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.’’
It has been determined that this rule
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the terms of Executive Order
12866. The annual economic effect
associated with today’s proposed rule
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
has not been quantified because the
information necessary to estimate the
effect does not exist. As was discussed
earlier in this preamble, USDA made
extensive efforts to obtain information
on the Federal agencies’ usage of the 10
items proposed for designation. These
efforts were largely unsuccessful.
Therefore, attempts to determine the
economic impacts of today’s proposed
rule would necessitate estimating the
anticipated market penetration of
biobased products, which would entail
many assumptions and, thus, be of
questionable value. Also, the program
allows procuring agencies the option of
not purchasing biobased products if the
costs are deemed ‘‘unreasonable.’’
Under this program, the determination
of ‘‘unreasonable’’ costs will be made by
individual agencies. USDA knows these
agencies will consider such factors as
price, life-cycle costs, and
environmental benefits in determining
whether the cost of a biobased product
is determined to be ‘‘reasonable’’ or
‘‘unreasonable.’’ However, until the
program is actually implemented by the
various agencies, it is impossible to
quantify the impact this option would
have on the economic effect of the rule.
Therefore, USDA relied on a qualitative
assessment to reach the judgment that
the annual economic effect of the
designation of these 10 items is less
than $100 million, and likely to be
substantially less than $100 million.
This judgment was based primarily on
the offsetting nature of the program (an
increase in biobased products
purchased with a corresponding
decrease in petroleum products
purchased) and, secondarily, on the
ability of procuring agencies not to
purchase these items if costs are judged
unreasonable, which would reduce the
economic effect.
1. Summary of Impacts
Today’s proposed rulemaking is
expected to have both positive and
negative impacts to individual
businesses, including small businesses.
USDA anticipates that the biobased
preferred procurement program will
provide additional opportunities for
businesses to begin supplying biobased
materials to manufacturers of 2-cycle
engine oils, lip care products,
biodegradable films, stationary
equipment hydraulic fluids,
biodegradable cutlery, glass cleaners,
greases, dust suppressants, carpets, and
carpet and upholstery cleaners and to
begin supplying these products made
with biobased materials to Federal
agencies and their contractors. In
addition, other businesses, including
small businesses, that do not directly
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
contract with procuring agencies may be
affected positively by the increased
demand for these biobased materials
and products. However, other
businesses that manufacture and supply
only non-qualifying products and do not
offer a biobased alternative product may
experience a decrease in demand for
their products. Thus, today’s proposed
rule will likely increase the demand for
biobased products, while decreasing the
demand for non-qualifying products. It
is anticipated that this will create a
largely ‘‘offsetting’’ economic impact.
USDA is unable to determine the
number of businesses, including small
businesses, that may be adversely
affected by today’s proposed rule. If a
business currently supplies any of the
items proposed for designation to a
procuring agency and those products do
not qualify as biobased products, the
proposed rule may reduce that
company’s ability to compete for future
contracts. However, the proposed rule
will not affect existing purchase orders,
nor will it preclude businesses from
modifying their product lines to meet
new specifications or solicitation
requirements for these products
containing biobased materials. Thus,
many businesses, including small
businesses, that market to Federal
agencies and their contractors have the
option of modifying their product lines
to meet the new biobased specifications.
2. Summary of Benefits
The designation of these 10 items
provides the benefits outlined in the
objectives of section 9002: To increase
domestic demand for biobased products
and, thus, for the many agricultural
commodities that can serve as
feedstocks for production of biobased
products; to spur development of the
industrial base through value-added
agricultural processing and
manufacturing in rural communities;
and to enhance the nation’s energy
security by substituting biobased
products for products derived from
imported oil and natural gas. The
increased demand for biobased products
will also lead to the substitution of
products with a possibly more benign or
beneficial environmental impact, as
compared to the use of non-biobased
products. By purchasing these biobased
products, procuring agencies can
increase opportunities for all of these
benefits. On a national and regional
level, today’s proposed rule can result
in expanding and strengthening markets
for biobased materials used in these 10
items. However, because the extent to
which procuring agencies will find the
performance and costs of biobased
products acceptable is unknown, it is
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47609
impossible to quantify the actual
economic effect of today’s proposed
rule. USDA, however, anticipates the
annual economic effect of the
designation of these 10 items to be
substantially below the $100 million
threshold. In addition, today’s proposed
rule does not do any of the following:
Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in Executive
Order 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–602, generally
requires an agency to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
USDA evaluated the potential impacts
of its proposed designation of these 10
items to determine whether its actions
would have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Because the Federal Biobased Products
Preferred Procurement Program in
section 9002 of FSRIA applies only to
Federal agencies and their contractors,
small governmental (city, county, etc.)
agencies are not affected. Thus, the
proposal, if promulgated, will not have
a significant economic impact on small
governmental jurisdictions. USDA
anticipates that this program will affect
entities, both large and small, that
manufacture or sell biobased products.
For example, the designation of items
for preferred procurement will provide
additional opportunities for businesses
to manufacture and sell biobased
products to Federal agencies and their
contractors. Similar opportunities will
be provided for entities that supply
biobased materials to manufacturers.
Conversely, the biobased procurement
program may decrease opportunities for
businesses that manufacture or sell nonbiobased 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
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47610
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
certain conditions relating to the
availability, performance, or cost of
biobased items. Today’s proposed rule
will also not preclude businesses from
modifying their product lines to meet
new specifications or solicitation
requirements for these products
containing biobased materials. Thus, the
economic impacts of today’s proposed
rule are not expected to be significant.
The intent of section 9002 is largely
to stimulate the production of new
biobased products and to energize
emerging markets for those products.
Because the program is still in its
infancy, however, it is unknown how
many businesses will ultimately be
affected. While USDA has no data on
the number of small businesses that may
choose to develop and market products
within the 10 items proposed for
designation by today’s proposed
rulemaking, the number is expected to
be small. Because biobased products
represent an emerging market, only a
small percentage of all manufacturers,
large or small, are expected to develop
and market biobased products. Thus,
the number of small businesses affected
by today’s proposed rulemaking is not
expected to be substantial.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, USDA certifies that this
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule,
therefore, does not require a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
While not a factor relevant to
determining whether the proposed rule
will have a significant impact for RFA
purposes, USDA has concluded that the
effect of today’s proposed rule would be
to provide positive opportunities to
businesses engaged in the manufacture
of these biobased products. Purchase
and use of these biobased products by
procuring agencies increase demand for
these products and result in private
sector development of new
technologies, creating business and
employment opportunities that enhance
local, regional, and national economies.
Technological innovation associated
with the use of biobased materials can
translate into economic growth and
increased industry competitiveness
worldwide, thereby, creating
opportunities for small entities.
C. Executive Order 12630:
Governmental Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
This proposed rule has been reviewed
in accordance with Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
Protected Property Rights, and does not
contain policies that would have
implications for these rights.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed
in accordance with Executive Order
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This
proposed rule does not preempt State or
local laws, is not intended to have
retroactive effect, and does not involve
administrative appeals.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment. Provisions of this proposed
rule will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or their political
subdivisions or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various government levels.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This proposed rule contains no
Federal mandates under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, for State, local, and
tribal governments, or the private sector.
Therefore, a statement under section
202 of UMRA is not required.
G. Executive Order 12372:
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs
For the reasons set forth in the Final
Rule Related Notice for 7 CFR part 3015,
subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983),
this program is excluded from the scope
of the Executive Order 12372, which
requires intergovernmental consultation
with State and local officials. This
program does not directly affect State
and local governments.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Today’s proposed rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect ‘‘one or
more Indian tribes, * * * the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or * * *
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ Thus,
no further action is required under
Executive Order 13175.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
through 3520), the information
collection under this proposed rule is
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
currently approved under OMB control
number 0503–0011.
J. Government Paperwork Elimination
Act Compliance
The Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses is committed to compliance with
the Government Paperwork Elimination
Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3504 note),
which requires Government agencies in
general to provide the public the option
of submitting information or transacting
business electronically to the maximum
extent possible. USDA is implementing
an electronic information system for
posting information voluntarily
submitted by manufacturers or vendors
on the products they intend to offer for
preferred procurement under each item
designated. For information pertinent to
GPEA compliance related to this rule,
please contact Marvin Duncan at (202)
401–0461.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 2902
Biobased products, Procurement.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of Agriculture
proposes to amend 7 CFR chapter XXIX
as follows:
CHAPTER XXIX—OFFICE OF ENERGY
POLICY AND NEW USES, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
PART 2902—GUIDELINES FOR
DESIGNATING BIOBASED PRODUCTS
FOR FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
1. The authority citation for part 2902
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8102.
2. Add §§ 2902.26 through 2902.35 to
subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B—Designated Items
Sec.
2902.26 2–Cycle Engine Oils.
2902.27 Lip Care Products.
2902.28 Biodegradable Films.
2902.29 Stationary Equipment Hydraulic
Fluids.
2902.30 Biodegradable Cutlery.
2902.31 Glass Cleaners.
2902.32 Greases.
2902.33 Dust Suppressants.
2902.34 Carpets.
2902.35 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners.
Subpart B—Designated Items
*
*
§ 2902.26
*
*
*
2–Cycle Engine Oils.
(a) Definition. Lubricants formulated
to provide clean-burning lubrication,
decreased spark plug fouling, reduced
deposit formation, and reduced engine
wear in 2-cycle gasoline engines.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content is 7 percent
and shall be based on the amount of
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
qualifying biobased carbon in the
product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased 2-cycle engine oils.
By that date, Federal agencies that have
the responsibility for drafting or
reviewing specifications for items to be
procured shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased 2-cycle engine oils.
(d) Exemptions. The following
applications are exempt for the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item:
(1) Military equipment: Product or
system designed or procured for combat
or combat-related missions.
(2) Spacecraft systems and launch
support equipment.
§ 2902.27
Lip Care Products.
(a) Definition. Personal care products
formulated to replenish the moisture
and/or prevent drying of the lips.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content is 82
percent and shall be based on the
amount of qualifying biobased carbon in
the product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased lip care products.
By that date, Federal agencies that have
the responsibility for drafting or
reviewing specifications for items to be
procured shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased lip care products.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems
and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 2902.28
Biodegradable Films.
(a) Definition. Films used in
packaging, wrappings, linings, and other
similar applications and that are capable
of meeting ASTM D6400 standard for
biodegradability.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content is 22
percent and shall be based on the
amount of qualifying biobased carbon in
the product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased biodegradable films.
By that date, Federal agencies that have
the responsibility for drafting or
reviewing specifications for items to be
procured shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased biodegradable films.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems
and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
§ 2902.29
Fluids.
Stationary Equipment Hydraulic
(a) Definition. Hydraulic fluids
formulated for use as a mechanical
power transmission medium (and to
provide wear, rust, and oxidation
protection) in the hydraulic systems of
stationary equipment.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content is 46
percent and shall be based on the
amount of qualifying biobased carbon in
the product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased stationary
equipment hydraulic fluids. By that
date, Federal agencies that have the
responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured
shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased stationary equipment
hydraulic fluids.
(d) Determining overlap with an EPAdesignated recovered content product.
Qualifying biobased products that fall
under this item may, in some cases,
overlap with the EPA-designated
recovered content product: Re-refined
lubricating oils. USDA is requesting that
manufacturers of these qualifying
biobased products provide information
on the USDA Web site of qualifying
biobased products about the intended
uses of the product, information on
whether or not the product contains any
recovered material, in addition to
biobased ingredients, and performance
standards against which the product has
been tested. This information will assist
Federal agencies in determining
whether or not a qualifying biobased
product overlaps with EPA-designated
building insulation and which product
should be afforded the preference in
purchasing.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47611
(e) Exemptions. The following
applications are exempt for the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item:
(1) Military equipment: Product or
system designed or procured for combat
or combat-related missions.
(2) Spacecraft systems and launch
support equipment.
§ 2902.30
Biodegradable Cutlery.
(a) Definition. Hand-held, disposable
utensils designed for one-time use in
eating food and that are capable of
meeting ASTM D5338 standard for
biodegradability.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content is 33
percent and shall be based on the
amount of qualifying biobased carbon in
the product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased biodegradable
cutlery. By that date, Federal agencies
that have the responsibility for drafting
or reviewing specifications for items to
be procured shall ensure that the
relevant specifications require the use of
biobased biodegradable cutlery.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems
and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
§ 2902.31
Glass Cleaners.
(a) Definition. Cleaning products
designed specifically for use in cleaning
glass surfaces, such as windows,
mirrors, car windows, and computer
monitors.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content is 23
percent and shall be based on the
amount of qualifying biobased carbon in
the product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product. If the finished product
is to be diluted before use, the biobased
content of the cleaner must be
determined before dilution.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased glass cleaners. By
that date, Federal agencies that have the
responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured
shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased glass cleaners.
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
47612
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems
and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 2902.32
Greases.
(a) Definition. (1) Lubricants
composed of oils thickened with soaps
or other thickeners to a semisolid or
solid consistency.
(2) Greases for which minimum
biobased contents under paragraph (b)
of this section apply are:
(i) Food grade greases. Lubricants that
are designed for use on food-processing
equipment as a protective anti-rust film,
as a release agent on gaskets or seals of
tank closures, or on machine parts and
equipment in locations in which there
is exposure of the lubricated part to
food.
(ii) Multipurpose greases. Lubricants
that are designed for general use.
(iii) Rail track greases. Lubricants that
are designed for use on railroad tracks
or heavy crane tracks.
(iv) Truck greases. Lubricants that are
designed for use on the fifth wheel of
tractor trailer trucks onto which the
semi-trailer rests and pivots.
(v) Greases not elsewhere specified.
Lubricants that meet the general
definition of greases as defined in
paragraph (a) of this section, but are not
otherwise covered by paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content for all
greases shall be based on the amount of
qualifying biobased carbon in the
product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product. The applicable
minimum biobased contents are:
(1) Food grade grease—42 percent.
(2) Multipurpose grease—73 percent.
(3) Rail track grease—30 percent.
(4) Truck grease—72 percent.
(5) Greases not elsewhere specified—
75 percent.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased greases. By that
date, Federal agencies that have the
responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured
shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased greases.
(d) Exemptions. The following
applications are exempt for the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item:
(1) Military equipment: Product or
system designed or procured for combat
or combat-related missions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:24 Aug 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
(2) Spacecraft systems and launch
support equipment.
§ 2902.33
Dust Suppressants.
(a) Definition. Products formulated to
reduce or eliminate the spread of dust
associated with gravel roads, dirt
parking lots, or similar sources of dust,
including products used in equivalent
indoor applications.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content is 66
percent and shall be based on the
amount of qualifying biobased carbon in
the product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product. If the finished product
is to be diluted before use, the biobased
content of the suppressant must be
determined before dilution.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased dust suppressants.
By that date, Federal agencies that have
the responsibility for drafting or
reviewing specifications for items to be
procured shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased dust suppressants.
(d) Exemptions. The following
applications are exempt for the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item:
(1) Military equipment: Product or
system designed or procured for combat
or combat-related missions.
(2) Spacecraft systems and launch
support equipment.
§ 2902.34
Carpets.
(a) Definition. Floor coverings
composed of woven fibers, with a
backing.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content is 7 percent
and shall be based on the amount of
qualifying biobased carbon in the
product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased carpet. By that date,
Federal agencies that have the
responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured
shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased carpet.
(d) Determining overlap with an EPAdesignated recovered content product.
Qualifying biobased products that fall
under this item may, in some cases,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
overlap with the EPA-designated
recovered content product: Carpets
(polyester). USDA is requesting that
manufacturers of these qualifying
biobased products provide information
on the USDA Web site of qualifying
biobased products about the intended
uses of the product, information on
whether or not the product contains any
recovered material, in addition to
biobased ingredients, and performance
standards against which the product has
been tested. This information will assist
Federal agencies in determining
whether or not a qualifying biobased
product overlaps with EPA-designated
building insulation and which product
should be afforded the preference in
purchasing.
(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems
and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
§ 2902.35
Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners.
(a) Definition. Cleaning products
formulated specifically for use in
cleaning carpets and upholstery,
through a dry or wet process, found in
locations such as houses, cars, and
workplaces. Spot cleaners are not
included in this item.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
minimum biobased content is 34
percent and shall be based on the
amount of qualifying biobased carbon in
the product as a percent of the weight
(mass) of the total organic carbon in the
finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later
than [date one year after the date of
publication of the final rule], procuring
agencies, in accordance with this part,
will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased carpet and
upholstery cleaners. By that date,
Federal agencies that have the
responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured
shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased carpet and upholstery
cleaners.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems
and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the
preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Dated: August 10, 2006.
Keith Collins,
Chief Economist, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 06–6920 Filed 8–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–GL–P
E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM
17AUP3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 159 (Thursday, August 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47590-47612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6920]
[[Page 47589]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR Part 2902
Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 47590]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
7 CFR Part 2902
RIN 0503-AA31
Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement
AGENCY: Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to
amend 7 CFR part 2902, Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for
Federal Procurement, to add 10 sections to designate the following 10
items within which biobased products would be afforded Federal
procurement preference, as provided for under section 9002 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002: 2-Cycle engine oils; lip
care products; biodegradable films; stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids; biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners; greases; dust
suppressants; carpets; and carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA also is
proposing minimum biobased content for each of these items. Once USDA
designates an item, procuring agencies are required generally to
purchase biobased products within these designated items where the
purchase price of the procurement item exceeds $10,000 or where the
quantity of such items or the functionally equivalent items purchased
over the preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or more.
DATES: USDA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until
October 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods. All
submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory
Information Number (RIN). The RIN for this rulemaking is 0503-AA31.
Also, please identify submittals as pertaining to the ``Proposed
Designation of Items.''
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: fb4p@oce.usda.gov. Include RIN number 0503-AA31
and ``Proposed Designation of Items'' on the subject line. Please
include your name and address in your message.
Mail/commercial/hand delivery: Mail or deliver your
comments to: Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the Chief Economist, Office
of Energy Policy and New Uses, Room 4059, South Building, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., MS-3815, Washington, DC 20250-3815.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
for communication for regulatory information (braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-
2600 (voice) and (202) 401-4133 (TDD).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the
Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Room 4059, South
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., MS-3815, Washington, DC 20250-
3815; e-mail: mduncan@oce.usda.gov; phone (202) 401-0461. Information
regarding the Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program
is available on the Internet at https://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
B. Items Proposed for Designation
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
D. Effective Date for Procurement Preference and Incorporation
into Specifications
V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information on These USDA-designated
Items?
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
I. Authority
The designation of these items is proposed under the authority of
section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(FSRIA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this document as ``section
9002'').
II. Background
Section 9002 of FSRIA, as amended by section 943 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 (Energy Policy Act), provides for
the preferred procurement of biobased products by procuring agencies.
Section 943 of the Energy Policy Act amended the definitions section of
FSRIA, 7 U.S.C. 8101, by adding a definition of ``procuring agency''
that includes both Federal agencies and ``any person contracting with
any Federal agency with respect to work performed under that
contract.'' The amendment also made Federal contractors, as well as
Federal agencies, expressly subject to the procurement preference
provisions of section 9002 of FSRIA. However, because this program
requires agencies to incorporate the preference for biobased products
into procurement specifications, the statutory amendment makes no
substantive change to the program. USDA amended the Guidelines to
incorporate the new definition of ``procuring agency'' through an
interim final rule.
Procuring agencies must procure biobased products within each
designated item unless they determine that products within a designated
item are not reasonably available within a reasonable period of time,
fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring
agencies, or are available only at an unreasonable price. As stated in
the Guidelines, biobased products that are merely incidental to Federal
funding are excluded from the preferred procurement program. In
implementing the preferred procurement program for biobased products,
procuring agencies should follow their procurement rules and Office of
Federal Procurement Policy guidance on buying non-biobased products
when biobased products exist and should document exceptions taken for
price, performance, and availability.
USDA recognizes that the performance needs for a given application
are important criteria in making procurement decisions. USDA is not
requiring procuring agencies to limit their choices to biobased
products that fall under the items for designation in this proposed
rule. Rather, the effect of the designation of the items is to require
procuring agencies to determine their performance needs, determine
whether there are qualified biobased products that fall under the
designated items that meet the reasonable performance standards for
those needs, and purchase such qualified biobased products to the
maximum extent practicable as required by section 9002.
Section 9002 also requires USDA to provide information to procuring
agencies on the availability, relative price, performance, and
environmental and public health benefits of such items
[[Page 47591]]
and, under section 9002(e)(1)(C), to recommend where appropriate the
minimum level of biobased content to be contained in the procured
products.
Overlap with EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines program for
recovered content products. Some of the biobased items designated for
preferred procurement may overlap with products designated under the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Comprehensive Procurement
Guidelines program for recovered content products. Where that occurs,
an EPA-designated recovered content product (also known as ``recycled
content products'' or ``EPA-designated products'') has priority in
Federal procurement over the qualifying biobased product. In situations
where USDA believes there may be an overlap, it plans to ask
manufacturers of qualifying biobased products to provide additional
product and performance information including the various suggested
uses of their product and the performance standards against which a
particular product has been tested. In addition, depending on the type
of biobased product, manufacturers may also be asked to provide other
types of information, such as whether the product contains petroleum-,
coal-, or natural gas-based components and whether the product contains
recovered materials. Federal agencies may also ask manufacturers for
information on a product's biobased content and its profile against
environmental and human health measures and life cycle costs (the
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) analysis
or ASTM International (ASTM) Standard D7075 for evaluating and
reporting on environmental performance of biobased products). Such
information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether the
biobased products in question are, or are not, the same products for
the same uses as the recovered content products and will be available
on USDA's Web site with its catalog of qualifying biobased products.
Where a biobased item is used for the same purposes and to meet the
same requirements as an EPA-designated recovered content product, the
Federal agency must purchase the recovered content product. For
example, if a biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used as a fluid in
hydraulic systems and ``lubricating oils containing re-refined oil''
has already been designated by EPA for that purpose, then the Federal
agency must purchase the EPA-designated recovered content product,
``lubricating oils containing re-refined oil.'' If, on the other hand,
that biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used to address certain
environmental or health requirements that the EPA-designated recovered
content product would not meet, then the biobased product should be
given preference, subject to cost, availability, and performance.
Federal Government Purchase of ``Green'' Products. Three components
of the Federal government's green purchasing program are the Biobased
Products Preferred Purchasing Program, the Environmental Protection
Agency's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for products containing
recovered materials, and the Environmentally Preferable Products
Program. The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) and
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) encourage agencies to
implement these components comprehensively when purchasing products and
services.
In the case of cleaning products, procuring agencies should note
that not all biobased products are ``environmentally preferable.''
Unless the cleaning products contain no or reduced levels of metals and
toxic and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life,
the environment, or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable
cleaning products, many Federal agencies specify that products must
meet Green Seal standards for institutional cleaning products or that
products have been reformulated in accordance with recommendations from
the U.S. EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program. Both the Green
Seal standards and the DfE program identify chemicals of concern in
cleaning products. These include zinc and other metals, formaldehyde,
ammonia, alkylphenol ethoxylates, ethylene glycol, and volatile organic
compounds. In addition, both require that cleaning products have
neutral or less caustic pH.
On the other hand, some biobased products may be better for the
environment than some products that meet Green Seal standards for
institutional cleaning products or that have been reformulated in
accordance with the EPA's DfE program. To fully compare products, one
must look at the ``cradle-to-grave'' impacts of the manufacture, use,
and disposal of products. Biobased products that will be available for
preferred procurement under this program have been assessed as to their
``cradle-to-grave'' impacts.
One consideration of a product's impact on the environment is
whether (and to what degree) it introduces new fossil carbon into the
atmosphere. Qualifying biobased products offer the user the opportunity
to manage the carbon cycle and limit the introduction of new fossil
carbon into the atmosphere, whereas non-biobased products derived from
fossil fuels add new fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
Manufacturers of qualifying biobased products under the Federal
Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program (FB4P) will be able to
provide, at the request of Federal agencies, factual information on
environmental and human health effects of their products, including the
results of the BEES analysis, which examines 11 different environmental
parameters, including human health, or the comparable ASTM D7505.
Therefore, USDA encourages Federal procurement agencies to examine all
available information on the environmental and human health effects of
cleaning products when making their purchasing decisions.
Green Building Council. More than a dozen Federal agencies use the
U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Green Building Rating Systems for new construction,
building renovation, and building operation and maintenance. The
systems provide criteria for implementing sustainable design principles
in building design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Points
are assigned to each criterion, and building projects can be certified
as ``certified,'' ``silver,'' ``gold,'' or ``platinum,'' depending on
the number of points for which the project qualifies. LEED for New
Construction and Major Renovations (LEED-NC) includes a ``Materials &
Resources'' criterion, with one point allocated for the use of rapidly
renewable materials. Thus, the use of biobased construction products
can help agencies obtain LEED certification for their building
construction projects.
Interagency Council. USDA has created, and is chairing, an
``interagency council,'' with membership selected from among Federal
stakeholders to the FB4P. To augment its own research, USDA consults
with this council in identifying the order of item designation,
manufacturers producing and marketing products that fall within an item
proposed for designation, performance standards used by Federal
agencies evaluating products to be procured, and warranty information
used by manufacturers of end user equipment and other products with
regard to biobased products.
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rulemaking
Today, USDA is proposing to designate the following 10 items for
[[Page 47592]]
preferred procurement: 2-Cycle engine oils; lip care products;
biodegradable films; stationary equipment hydraulic fluids;
biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners; greases; dust suppressants;
carpets; and carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA is also proposing
minimum biobased content for each of these items (see Section IV.C).
Lastly, USDA is proposing a date by which Federal agencies must
incorporate designated items into their procurement specifications (see
Section IV.D).
In today's proposed rulemaking, USDA is providing information on
its findings as to the availability, economic and technical
feasibility, environmental and public health benefits, and life cycle
costs for each of the 10 designated items. Information on the
availability, relative price, performance, and environmental and public
health benefits of individual products within each of these 10 items is
not presented in this notice. Further, USDA has reached an agreement
with manufacturers not to publish their names in the Federal Register
when designating items. This agreement was reached to encourage
manufacturers to submit products for testing to support the designation
of an item. Once an item has been designated, USDA will encourage the
manufacturers of products within the designated item to voluntarily
post their names and other contact information on the USDA FB4P Web
site.
Warranties. Some of the items being proposed for designation today
may affect maintenance warranties. As time and resources allow, USDA
will work with manufacturers on addressing any effect the use of
biobased products may have on maintenance warranties. At this time,
however, USDA does not have information available as to whether or not
the manufacturers will state that the use of these products will void
maintenance warranties. USDA encourages manufacturers of biobased
products to work with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure
that biobased products will not void maintenance warranties when used.
USDA is willing to assist manufacturers of the biobased products, if
they find that existing performance standards for maintenance
warranties are not relevant or appropriate for biobased products, in
working with the appropriate OEMs to develop tests that are relevant
and appropriate for the end uses in which biobased products are
intended. If despite these efforts there is insufficient information
regarding the use of a biobased product and its effect on maintenance
warranties, USDA notes that the procurement agent would not be required
to buy such a product. As information is available on warranties, USDA
will make such information available on its FB4P Web site.
Additional Information. USDA is working with manufacturers and
vendors to post all relevant product and manufacturer contact
information on the FB4P Web site before a procuring agency asks for it,
in order to make the preferred program more efficient. Steps USDA has
implemented, or will implement, include: Making direct contact with
submitting companies through e-mail and phone conversations to
encourage completion of product listing; coordinating outreach efforts
with intermediate material producers to encourage participation of
their customer base; conducting targeted outreach with industry and
commodity groups to educate stakeholders on the importance of providing
complete product information; participating in industry conferences and
meetings to educate companies on program benefits and requirements; and
communicating the potential for expanded markets beyond the Federal
government, to include State and local governments, as well as the
general public markets. Section V provides instructions to agencies on
how to obtain this information on products within these items through
the following Web site: https://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
Comments. USDA invites comment on the proposed designation of these
10 items, including the definition, proposed minimum biobased content,
and any of the relevant analyses performed during the selection of
these items. In addition, USDA invites comments and information in the
following areas:
1. Two of the items being proposed for designation (stationary
equipment hydraulic fluids and carpets) may overlap with products
designated under EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for
products containing recovered material. To help procuring agencies in
making their purchasing decisions between biobased products within the
proposed designated items that overlap with products containing
recovered material, USDA is requesting from manufacturers and users
product specific information on unique performance attributes,
environmental and human health effects, disposal costs, and other
attributes that would distinguish biobased products from products
containing recovered material as well as non-biobased products. USDA
will post this information on the FB4P Web site.
2. Biobased carpet can be composed of a biobased face or a biobased
backing or both (i.e., both the face and backing are biobased). USDA is
proposing in today's notice that the minimum biobased content for
carpet be based on the total product; that is, on both the carpet's
face and backing. USDA is seeking comment on whether separate minimum
biobased contents should be set for the face and for the backing.
Please provide detailed rationale and information to support your
comments.
3. USDA is proposing to designate dust suppressants as an item for
preferred procurement. The products intended to be covered are those
designed for use in outdoor environments. However, the same products,
or products with very similar formulations, may also be used in indoor
environments, such as indoor arenas, that simulate outdoor conditions.
For example, an indoor arena might provide parking on a dirt floor,
such as would be found in outside parking. USDA is proposing that dust
suppressant products used for similar situations that take place within
an indoor environment be included in this item. USDA is interested in
your comments on whether this item should be strictly limited to
outdoor environments. Please be sure to provide your rationale for your
comments.
4. We have attempted to identify relevant and appropriate
performance standards and other relevant measures of performance for
each of the proposed items. If you know of other such standards or
relevant measures of performance for the proposed items, USDA requests
that you submit information identifying such standards and measures,
including their name (and other identifying information as necessary),
identifying who is using the standard/measure, and describing the
circumstances under which the product is being used. For example, in
today's proposed rulemaking, a Green Seal standard (GS-37) has been
identified for glass cleaners. USDA is interested in learning if other
equivalent standards for glass cleaners exist and where they are being
used.
5. As proposed, biodegradable films do not include films used for
agricultural purposes (such as films that would be used to cover
fields) and durable films. Durable films will be proposed as a separate
item for preferred procurement. USDA, however, is interested in
receiving comment on whether there should be any subcategories within
biodegradable films (including any biodegradable films that might be
considered agricultural films) and what they might be. Please be sure
to provide rationale and supporting information with your comments.
[[Page 47593]]
6. Many biobased products within the items being proposed for
designation will have positive environmental and human health
attributes. USDA is seeking comments on such attributes in order to
provide additional information on the FB4P Web site. This information
will then be available to Federal procuring agencies and will assist
them in making ``best value'' purchase decisions. When possible, please
provide appropriate documentation to support the environmental and
human health attributes you describe.
To assist you in developing your comments, the background
information used in proposing these items for designation can be found
on the FB4P Web site. All comments should be submitted as directed in
the ADDRESSES section above.
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
In order to designate items (generic groupings of specific products
such as crankcase oils or products that contain qualifying biobased
fibers) for preferred procurement, section 9002 requires USDA to
consider: (1) The availability of items; and (2) the economic and
technological feasibility of using the items, including the life cycle
costs of the items.
In considering an item's availability, USDA uses several sources of
information. USDA performs Internet searches, contacts trade
associations (such as the Biobased Manufacturers Association) and
commodity groups, searches the Thomas Register (a database, used as a
resource for finding companies and products manufactured in North
America, containing over 173,000 entries), and contacts individual
manufacturers and vendors to identify those manufacturers and vendors
with biobased products within items being considered for designation.
USDA uses the results of these same searches to determine if an item is
generally available.
In considering an item's economic and technological feasibility,
USDA examines evidence pointing to the general commercial use of an
item and its cost and performance characteristics. This information is
obtained from the sources used to assess an item's availability.
Commercial use, in turn, is evidenced by any manufacturer and vendor
information on the availability, relative prices, and performance of
their products as well as by evidence of an item being purchased by a
procuring agency or other entity, where available. In sum, USDA
considers an item economically and technologically feasible for
purposes of designation if products within that item are being offered
and used in the marketplace.
In considering the life cycle costs of items proposed for
designation, USDA uses the BEES analytical tool to test individual
products within each proposed item. (Detailed information on this
analytical tool can be found on the Web site https://www.bfrl.nist.gov/
oae/software/bees.html.) The BEES analytical tool measures the
environmental performance and the economic performance of a product.
Environmental performance is measured in the BEES analytical tool
using the internationally-standardized and science-based life cycle
assessment approach specified in the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14000 standards. The BEES environmental
performance analysis includes human health as one of its components.
All stages in the life of a product are analyzed: Raw material
production; manufacture; transportation; installation; use; and
recycling and waste management. The time period over which
environmental performance is measured begins with raw material
production and ends with disposal (waste management). The BEES
environmental performance analysis also addresses products made from
biobased feedstocks.
Economic performance in the BEES analysis is measured using the
ASTM standard life cycle cost method (ASTM E917), which covers the
costs of initial investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and
repair, and disposal. The time frame for economic performance extends
from the purchase of the product to final disposal.
USDA then utilizes the BEES results of individual products within a
designated item in its consideration of the life cycle costs at the
item level. There is a single unit of comparison associated with each
designated item. The basis for the unit of comparison is the
``functional unit,'' defined so that the products compared are true
substitutes for one another. If significant differences have been
identified in the useful lives of alternative products within a
designated item (e.g., if one product lasts twice as long as another),
the functional unit will include reference to a time dimension to
account for the frequency of product replacement. The functional unit
also will account for products used in different amounts for equivalent
service. For example, one surface coating product may be
environmentally and economically preferable to another on a pound-for-
pound basis, but may require twice the mass to cover one square foot of
surface, and last half as long, as the other product. To account for
these performance differences, the functional unit for the surface
coating item could be ``one square foot of application for 20 years''
instead of ``one pound of surface coating product.'' The functional
unit provides the critical reference point to which all BEES results
for products within an item are scaled. Because functional units vary
from item to item, performance comparisons are valid only among
products within a designated item.
The complete results of the BEES analysis, extrapolated to the item
level, for each item proposed for designation in today's proposed
rulemaking can be found at https://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
As discussed above, the BEES analysis includes information on the
environmental performance, human health impacts, and economic
performance. In addition, ASTM D7505, which manufacturers may use in
lieu of the BEES analytical tool, provides similar information. USDA is
working with manufacturers and vendors to post this information on the
FB4P Web site before a procuring agency asks for it, in order to make
the preferred procurement program more efficient. As discussed earlier,
USDA has also implemented, or will implement, several other steps
intended to educate the manufacturers and other stakeholders on the
benefits of this program and the need to post this information,
including manufacturer contact information, on the FB4P Web site to
make it available to procurement officials. Additional information on
specific products within the items proposed for designation may also be
obtained directly from the manufacturers of the products.
USDA recognizes that information related to the functional
performance of biobased products is a primary factor in making the
decision to purchase these products. USDA is gathering from
manufacturers of biobased products being considered for designation
information on industry standard test methods that they are using to
evaluate the functional performance of their products. Additional
standards are also being identified during meetings of the Interagency
Council and during the review process for each proposed rule. We have
listed under the detailed discussion of each item proposed for
designation (presented in Section IV.B) the functional performance test
methods identified during the development of this Federal Register
notice for these 10 items. While this process identifies
[[Page 47594]]
many of the relevant standards, USDA recognizes that the performance
test methods identified herein do not represent all of the methods that
may be applicable for a designated item or for any individual product
within the designated item. As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is
requesting identification of other relevant performance standards and
measures of performance. As the program becomes fully implemented,
these and other additional relevant performance standards will be
available on the FB4P Web site.
In gathering information relevant to the analyses discussed above,
USDA has made extensive efforts to contact and request information and
product samples from representatives of all known manufacturers of
products within the items proposed for designation. However, because
the submission of information is on a strictly voluntary basis, USDA
was able to obtain information and samples only from those
manufacturers who were willing voluntarily to invest the resources
required to gather and submit the information and samples. USDA used
the samples to test for biobased content and the information to conduct
the BEES analyses. The data presented are all the data that were
submitted in response to USDA requests for information from all known
manufacturers of the products within the 10 items proposed for
designation. While USDA would prefer to have complete data on the full
range of products within each item, the data that were submitted are
sufficient to support designation of the items in today's proposed
rulemaking.
To propose an item for designation, USDA must have sufficient
information on a sufficient number of products within an item to be
able to assess its availability and its economic and technological
feasibility, including its life cycle costs. For some items, there may
be numerous products available. For other items, there may be very few
products currently available. Given the infancy of the market for some
items, it is not unexpected that even single-product items will be
identified. Further, given that the intent of section 9002 is largely
to stimulate the production of new biobased products and to energize
emerging markets for those products, USDA has determined that the
identification of two or more biobased products within an item, or even
a single product with two or more suppliers, is sufficient to consider
the designation of that item. Similarly, the documented availability,
benefits, and life cycle costs of even a very small percentage of all
products that may exist within an item are also considered sufficient
to support designation.
B. Items Proposed for Designation
USDA uses a model (as summarized below) to identify and prioritize
items for designation. Through this model, USDA has identified over 100
items for potential designation under the preferred procurement
program. A list of these items and information on the model can be
accessed on the USDA biobased program Web site at https://
www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
In general, items are developed and prioritized for designation by
evaluating them against program criteria established by USDA and by
gathering information from other government agencies, private industry
groups, and independent manufacturers. These evaluations begin by
asking the following questions about the products within an item:
Are they cost competitive with non-biobased products?
Do they meet industry performance standards?
Are they readily available on the commercial market?
In addition to these primary concerns, USDA then considers the
following points:
Are there manufacturers interested in providing the
necessary test information on products within a particular item?
Are there a number of manufacturers producing biobased
products in this item?
Are there products available in this item?
What level of difficulty is expected when designating this
item?
Is there Federal demand for the product?
Are Federal procurement personnel looking for biobased
products?
Will an item create a high demand for biobased feed stock?
Does manufacturing of products within this item increase
potential for rural development?
After completing this evaluation, USDA prioritizes the list of
items for designation. USDA then gathers information on products within
the highest priority items and, as sufficient information becomes
available for groups of approximately 10 items, a new rulemaking
package will be developed to designate the items within that group. The
list of items may change, with items being added or dropped, and the
order in which items are proposed for designation is likely to change
because the information necessary to designate an item may take more
time to obtain than an item lower on the list.
In today's proposed rulemaking, USDA is proposing to designate 10
items for the preferred procurement program: 2-Cycle engine oils; lip
care products; biodegradable films; stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids; biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners; greases; dust
suppressants; carpets; and carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA has
determined that each of these 10 items meets the necessary statutory
requirements--namely, that they are being produced with biobased
products and that their procurement by procuring agencies will carry
out the following objectives of section 9002:
To increase demand for biobased products, which would in
turn increase demand for agricultural commodities that can serve as
feedstocks for the production of biobased products;
To spur development of the industrial base through value-
added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities;
and
To enhance the nation's energy security by substituting
biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural
gas.
Further, USDA has sufficient information on these 10 items to
determine their availability and to conduct the requisite analyses to
determine their biobased content and their economic and technological
feasibility, including life cycle costs.
Mature Markets. Section 2902.5(c)(2) of the final guidelines states
that USDA will not designate items for preferred procurement that are
determined to have mature markets. Mature markets are described as
items that had significant national market penetration in 1972. USDA
contacted manufacturers, manufacturing associations, and industry
researchers to determine if, in 1972, biobased products had a
significant market share within any of the items proposed for
designation today. USDA found that biobased products within none of the
10 items proposed for designation today had a significant market share
in 1972 and that, generally, the companies that produce biobased
products within these proposed designated items have been in business
for only 10 to 20 years.
Overlap with EPA-Designated Recovered Content Products. In today's
proposed rule, two of the 10 items may overlap with EPA-designated
recovered content products. These two items are: stationary equipment
hydraulic fluid and carpets. For these two items, USDA is requesting
that certain information on the qualifying biobased products be made
available by their manufacturers to assist Federal agencies in
determining
[[Page 47595]]
if an overlap exists between the qualifying biobased product and the
applicable EPA-designated recovered content product. As noted earlier
in this preamble, USDA is requesting information on overlap situations
to further help procuring agencies make informed decisions when faced
with purchasing a recovered content material product or a biobased
product. As this information is developed, USDA will make it available
on the FB4P Web site.
Exemptions. When proposing items for preferred procurement under
the FB4P, USDA will identify, on an item-by-item basis, items that
would be exempt from preferred procurement on the basis of their use in
products and systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related
missions. USDA believes it is inappropriate to apply the biobased
purchasing requirement to tactical equipment unless the Department of
Defense has documented that these products can meet the performance
requirements for such equipment and are available in sufficient supply
to meet domestic and overseas deployment needs. After evaluating these
situations for each of the 10 items being proposed for designation,
USDA is proposing to exempt 2-cycle engine oils, stationary hydraulic
fluids, greases, and dust suppressants from preferred procurement under
the FB4P when used in combat or combat-related missions.
USDA is proposing an exemption for all designated items when used
in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment, because failure of
such items could lead to catastrophic consequences. Many, if not all,
items that USDA is or is planning to designate for preferred
procurement are or will be used in space applications. Frequently, such
applications used these items in ways that are different from their
more ``conventional'' use on Earth. It is difficult, if not impossible,
to forecast what situations may occur when these items are used in
space and how they will perform. Therefore, USDA believes is it
reasonable to limit the preferred procurement program to items used in
more conventional applications and is proposing to exempt all
designated items used in space applications from the FB4P.
For each item being proposed for exemption, the exemption does not
extend to contractors performing work for DoD or NASA. For example, if
a contractor is producing a part for use on the space shuttle, the
metalworking fluid the contractor uses to produce the part should be
biobased (provided it meets the specifications for metalworking). The
exemption does apply, however, if the product being purchased by the
contractor is for use in combat or combat-related missions or for use
in space applications. For example, if the part being produced by the
contractor would actually be part of the space shuttle, then the
exemption applies.
Each of the 10 proposed designated items are discussed in the
following sections.
1. 2-Cycle Engine Oils
2-Cycle engine oils are lubricant products formulated to provide
clean-burning lubrication, decreased spark plug fouling, reduced
deposit formation, and reduced engine wear in 2-cycle gasoline engines
(commonly found in lawn and garden equipment, small marine craft, and
personal recreational vehicles such as motorcycles and snowmobiles).
Biobased 2-cycle engine oils are typically formulated from natural soy,
canola, or other seed-based oil feed stocks.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
products and systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related
missions and in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased 2-cycle engine oils, USDA identified 11 different
manufacturers producing 17 individual biobased products. These 11
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
2-cycle engine oils, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that many of these products have been tested against multiple
industry performance standards and are being used commercially. While
other applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
ASTM D445-04e2, Standard Test Method for Kinematic
Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of
Dynamic Viscosity);
ASTM D93-02a, Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point by
Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester;
ASTM D2896-05 Standard Test Method for Base Number of
Petroleum Products by Potentiometric Perchloric Acid Titration;
ASTM D97-05, Standard Test Method for Pour Point of
Petroleum Products;
ASTM D2500-02e1, Standard Test Method for Cloud Point of
Petroleum Products;
ASTM D4682-87 (2002), Standard Specification for
Miscibility with Gasoline and Fluidity of Two-Stroke-Cycle Gasoline
Engine Lubricants;
CEC-L-33-T82 is comparable to ASTM 5864 and tests for
biodegradability;
ASTM D2619, Standard Test Method for Hydrolytic Stability
of Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle Method);
ASTM D892, Standard Test Method for Foaming
Characteristics of Lubricating Oils;
ASTM D665, Standard Test Method for Rust-Preventing
Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of Water;
ASTM D2270, Standard Practice for Calculating Viscosity
Index From Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 [deg]C; and
International Organization for Standardization
ISO GD Surface chemical analysis--Glow discharge optical
emission spectrometry (GD-OES).
USDA contacted procurement officials with various procuring
agencies including the General Services Administration, several offices
within the Defense Logistics Agency, the OFEE, USDA Departmental
Administration, the National Park Service, EPA, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and OMB in an effort to gather information on the purchases
of 2-cycle engine oils and products within the other nine items
proposed for designation today. Communications with these officials
lead to the conclusion that obtaining credible current usage statistics
and specific potential markets within the Federal government for
biobased products within the 10 proposed designated items is not
possible at this time. Most of the contacted officials reported that
procurement data are reported in higher level groupings of materials
and supplies than the proposed designated items. Also, the purchasing
of such materials as part of contracted services and with individual
purchase cards used to purchase products locally further obscures
credible data on purchases of specific products.
USDA also investigated the Web site https://www.fedbizopps.gov, a
site which lists Federal contract purchase opportunities greater than
$25,000. The information provided on this Web site, however, is for
broad categories of products rather than the specific types of products
that are included in today's rulemaking. Therefore, USDA has been
[[Page 47596]]
unable to obtain data on the amount of 2-cycle engine oils purchased by
procuring agencies. However, Federal agencies routinely perform, or
procure contract services such as lawn maintenance services, that
utilize small gas powered devices. Thus, they have a need for 2-cycle
engine oils and for services that require the use of 2-cycle engine
oils. Designation of 2-cycle engine oils will promote the use of
biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased 2-cycle engine oils was performed for
three of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 1
summarizes the BEES results for the three 2-cycle engine oils. As seen
in Table 1, the environmental performance score, which includes human
health, ranges from 0.0474 to 0.0661 points per gallon (mixed with fuel
and ready to use). The environmental performance score indicates the
share of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to one gallon (mixed with fuel and ready to use) of the
product, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. For example, the total
amount of criteria air pollutants emitted in the U.S. in one year was
divided by the total U.S. population to derive a ``criteria air
pollutants per person value.'' The production and use of one gallon
(mixed with fuel and ready to use) of 2-cycle engine oil sample A was
estimated to contribute 0.000002 percent of this value.
Table 1.--Summary of BEES Results for 2-Cycle Engine Oils
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Cycle engine oils
Parameters -----------------------------------------
Sample A Sample B Sample C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental 0.0474 0.0485 0.0661
Performance--Total Score \1\.
Acidification (5%)............ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%).. 0.0002 0.0002 0.0008
Ecological Toxicity (11%)..... 0.0036 0.0036 0.0092
Eutrophication (5%)........... 0.0017 0.0018 0.0035
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).... 0.0200 0.0204 0.0215
Global Warming (16%).......... 0.0060 0.0061 0.0080
Habitat Alteration (16%)...... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%)............ 0.0080 0.0085 0.0103
Indoor Air (11%).............. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%).......... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)..................... 0.0079 0.0078 0.0122
Water Intake (3%)............. 0.0000 0.0001 0.0006
Economic Performance (Life 2.70 2.95 4.84
Cycle Costs ($)) \2\.........
First Cost.................... 2.70 2.95 4.84
Future Cost (3.9%)............ (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............... 1 gallon (mixed with fuel and ready to
use)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
When evaluating the information presented in Table 1, as well as in
the subsequent tables presented in this preamble, it should be noted
that comparisons of the environmental performance scores are valid only
among products within a designated item. Thus, comparisons of the
scores presented in Table 1 and the scores presented in tables for
other proposed designated items are not meaningful.
The numbers in parentheses following each of the 12 environmental
impacts listed in the tables in this preamble indicate weighting
factors. The weighting factors represent the relative importance of the
12 environmental impacts, including human health impacts, that
contribute to the BEES Environmental Score. They are derived from lists
of the relative importance of these impacts developed by the EPA
Science Advisory Board for the purpose of advising EPA as to how best
to allocate its limited resources among environmental impact areas.
Note that a lower Environmental Performance score is better than a
higher score.
Life cycle costs presented in the tables in this preamble are per
the appropriate functional unit for the proposed designated item.
Future costs are discounted to present value using the OMB discount
rate of 3.9 percent.
The life cycle costs of the submitted 2-cycle engine oils range
from $2.70 to $4.84 (present value dollars) per gallon (mixed with fuel
and ready to use). Present value dollars presented in this preamble
represent the sum of all costs associated with a product over a fixed
period of time, including any applicable costs for purchase,
installation, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and
disposal. Present value dollars presented in this preamble reflect 2005
dollars. Dollars are expressed in present value terms to adjust for the
effects of inflation. The complete results of the BEES analysis,
extrapolated to the item level, for each item proposed for designation
in today's proposed rulemaking can be found at https://
www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
2. Lip Care Products
Lip care products are personal care products formulated to
replenish the moisture and/or prevent drying, thereby promoting better
skin health of the lips. Biobased lip care products are typically
formulated from natural soy or other seed-based oil feed stocks.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased lip care products, USDA identified 10 different
manufacturers producing 28 individual biobased products. These 10
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
lip care products, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that these products are typically tested against an
[[Page 47597]]
industry standard and are being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Stability Test.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
various Federal agencies procure personal care products for use by
their employees. Thus, they have a need for lip care products.
Designation of lip care products will promote the use of biobased
products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased lip care products was performed for two of
the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 2 summarizes the
BEES results for the two lip care products. As seen in Table 2, the
environmental performance score, which includes human health, ranges
from 0.1484 to 0.1778 points per case of lip balm (i.e., 2,380 tubes).
The environmental performance score indicates the share of annual per
capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to one case of
the product, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 2.--Summary of BEES Results for Lip Care Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lip care products
Parameters -------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.1484 0.1778
\1\..........................................
Acidification (5%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%).................. 0.0007 0.0010
Ecological Toxicity (11%)..................... 0.0409 0.0447
Eutrophication (5%)........................... 0.0157 0.0101
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................... 0.0412 0.0533
Global Warming (16%).......................... 0.0136 0.0182
Habitat Alteration (16%)...................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%)............................ 0.0128 0.0180
Indoor Air (11%).............................. 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)..................................... 0.0076 0.0105
Water Intake (3%)............................. 0.0159 0.0220
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) \2\ 1,071 2,356
First Cost.................................... 1,071 2,356
Future Cost (3.9%)............................ (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................... one case (2,380 tubes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle costs of the submitted lip care products range from
$1,071 to $2,356 (present value dollars) per case of lip balm.
3. Biodegradable Films
Biodegradable films are used in packaging, wrappings, linings, and
other similar applications and are capable of meeting ASTM D6400
standards for biodegradability. For the purpose of defining this
designated item, biodegradable films do not include films used for
agricultural purposes (such as films that would be used to cover
fields) and durable films. Durable films will be proposed as a separate
item for preferred procurement.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased biodegradable films, USDA identified 15 different
manufacturers producing 45 individual products. These 15 manufacturers
do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased biodegradable
films, merely those identified during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that
these products are typically tested against one or more industry
performance standards and are being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
ASTM D6400, Standard Specification for Compostable
Plastics; and
Deutsches Institut fur Normung, the German Institute for
Standardization DIN V 54900 Standard for testing the
compostability of polymeric materials.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
Federal agencies routinely procure products, such as trash can liners,
leaf collection bags, and packaging materials, that are made from
biodegradable films. In addition, many Federal agencies contract for
services involving the use of such products. Thus, they have a need for
products made from biodegradable films and for services that use
products made from biodegradable films. Designation of biodegradable
films will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased biodegradable films was performed for two
of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 3 summarizes the
BEES results for the two biobased biodegradable films. As seen in Table
3, the environmental performance score, which includes human health,
ranges from 0.0150 to 0.5682 points per kilogram of biodegradable film.
The environmental performance score indicates the share of annual per
capita U.S. environmental
[[Page 47598]]
impacts that is attributable to one kilogram of the product, expressed
in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 3.--Summary of BEES Results for Biodegradable Films
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameters Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.5682 0.0150
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0001 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0046 0.0001
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0277 0.0006
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0330 0.0005
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.2052 0.0084
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0717 0.0020
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0893 0.0020
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.1365 0.0012
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0001 0.0002
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 6.60 8.17
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 6.60 8.17
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. one kilogram
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted biodegradable films was $6.60
to $8.17 (present value dollars) per kilogram of biodegradable film.
4. Stationary Equipment Hydraulic Fluids
Stationary equipment hydraulic fluids are hydraulic fluid products
formulated for use in the hydraulic systems of stationary equipment.
Products in this item act as a mechanical power transmission medium to
replace mineral oils and to provide wear, rust, and oxidation
protection for machine tools and equipment. Biobased stationary
hydraulic fluids are typically formulated from natural soy, canola, or
other seed oil-based feed stocks.
Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the EPA-
designated recovered content product: Re-refined lubricating oils.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
products and systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related
missions and in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased stationary equipment hydraulic fluids, USDA identified
20 different manufacturers producing 66 individual biobased products.
These 20 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of
biobased stationary equipment hydraulic fluids, merely those identified
during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by
these manufacturers indicates that many of these products have been
tested against multiple industry performance standards and are being
used commercially. While other applicable performance standards may
exist, applicable industry performance standards against which these
products have been typically tested, as identified by manufacturers of
products within this item, include:
ASTM D1122-97a(2002), Standard Test Method for Density or
Relative Density of Engine Coolant Concentrates and Engine Coolants By
The Hydrometer;
ASTM D1298-99e2, Standard Test Method for Density,
Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum
and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method;
ASTM D130-04, Standard Test Method for Corrosiveness to
Copper from Petroleum Products by Copper Strip Test;
ASTM D1401-02, Standard Test Method for Water Separability
of Petroleum Oils and Synthetic Fluids;
ASTM D1500-04a, Standard Test Method for ASTM Color of
Petroleum Products (ASTM Color Scale);
ASTM D2266-01, Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive
Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method);
ASTM D2270-04, Standard Practice for Calculating Viscosity
Index From Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 [deg]C;
ASTM D2272-02, Standard Test Method for Oxidation
Stability of Steam Turbine Oils by Rotating Pressure Vessel;
ASTM D2532-03, Standard Test Method for Viscosity and
Viscosity Change After Standing at Low Temperature of Aircraft Turbine
Lubricants;
ASTM D2619-95(2002)e1, Standard Test Method for Hydrolytic
Stability of Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle Method);
ASTM D287-92(2000)e1, Standard Test Method for API Gravity
of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Hydrometer Method);
ASTM D2983-04a, Standard Test Method for Low-Temperature
Viscosity of Lubricants Measured by Brookfield Viscometer;
ASTM D4052-96(2002)e1, Standard Test Method for Density
and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter;
ASTM D4172-94(2004), Standard Test Method for Wear
Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid (Four-Ball Method);
ASTM D445-04e2, Standard Test Method for Kinematic
Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of
Dynamic Viscosity);
ASTM D567-53(1955), Method for Calculating Viscosity Index
(Withdrawn 1966);
ASTM D5864-00, Standard Test Method for Determining
Aerobic Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or Their Components; and
ASTM D665-03, Standard Test Method for Rust-Preventing
[[Page 47599]]
Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of Water.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as discussed in the section on
2-cycle engine oils. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However,
Federal agencies routinely own and operate stationary equipment with
hydraulic cylinders. In addition, many Federal agencies contract for
services involving the use of such equipment. Thus,