Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement, 63298-63328 [E8-25037]
Download as PDF
63298
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
7 CFR Part 2902
RIN 0503–AA33
Designation of Biobased Items for
Federal Procurement
Departmental Administration,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to
amend the Guidelines for Designating
Biobased Products for Federal
Procurement, by adding nine sections to
designate the following nine items
within which biobased products would
be afforded Federal procurement
preference: Chain and cable lubricants;
corrosion preventatives; food cleaners;
forming lubricants; gear lubricants;
general purpose household cleaners;
industrial cleaners; multipurpose
cleaners; and parts wash solutions.
USDA also is proposing minimum
biobased content for each of these items.
DATES: USDA will accept public
comments on this proposed rule until
December 22, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods. All
submissions received must include the
agency name and Regulatory
Information Number (RIN). The RIN for
this rulemaking is 0503–AA33. Also,
please identify submittals as pertaining
to the ‘‘Proposed Designation of Items.’’
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: biopreferred@usda.gov.
Include RIN number 0503–AA33 and
‘‘Proposed Designation of Items’’ on the
subject line. Please include your name
and address in your message.
• Mail/commercial/hand delivery:
Mail or deliver your comments to:
Shana Love, USDA, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration,
Room 209A, Whitten Building, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–0103.
• Persons with disabilities who
require alternative means for
communication for regulatory
information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the
USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720–
2600 (voice) and (202) 401–4133 (TDD).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shana Love, USDA, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration,
Room 209A, Whitten Building, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
Washington, DC 20250–0103; e-mail:
biopreferred@usda.gov; phone (202)
205–4008. Information regarding the
Federal Procurement of Biobased
Products (one part of the BioPreferred
Program) is available on the Internet at
https://www.biopreferred.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Today’s Proposed Rule
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased
Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
B. Items Proposed for Designation
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
D. Compliance Date for Procurement
Preference and Incorporation Into
Specifications
V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information
on These USDA-Designated Items?
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 12372:
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act
Compliance
I. Authority
The designation of these items is
proposed under the authority of section
9002 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), as
amended by the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), 7 U.S.C.
8102 (referred to in this document as
‘‘section 9002’’).
II. Background
Section 9002, as amended by the
FCEA of 2008, provides for the preferred
procurement of biobased products by
Federal procuring agencies (referred to
hereafter in this FR notice as the
‘‘preferred procurement program’’). The
definition of ‘‘procuring agency’’ in
section 9002, as amended by the FCEA
of 2008, includes both Federal agencies
and ‘‘a person that is a party to a
contract with any Federal agency, with
respect to work performed under such a
contract.’’ Thus, Federal contractors, as
well as Federal agencies, are expressly
subject to the procurement preference
provisions of section 9002.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Once USDA designates an item,
procuring agencies are required
generally to purchase biobased products
within these designated items where the
purchase price of the procurement item
exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity
of such items or the functionally
equivalent items purchased over the
preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or
more. Procuring agencies must procure
biobased products within each
designated item unless they determine
that products within a designated item
are not reasonably available within a
reasonable period of time, fail to meet
the reasonable performance standards of
the procuring agencies, or are available
only at an unreasonable price. As stated
in the Guidelines, biobased products
that are merely incidental to Federal
funding are excluded from the preferred
procurement program; that is, the
requirements to purchase biobased
products do not apply to such purchases
if they are unrelated to or incidental to
the purpose of the Federal contract. To
illustrate, you are awarded a Federal
contract to construct a Federal office
building with elevators. The elevators
require hydraulic fluid to operate.
Because stationary equipment hydraulic
fluids are an item that has been
designated for preferred procurement,
the hydraulic fluid purchased for use in
the elevators would be subject to the
requirements of section 9002. In order to
install these elevators, cranes may be
used. These cranes require hydraulic
fluid to operate. The hydraulic fluid
purchased for the maintenance of these
cranes used in the performance of that
contract, however, is considered to be
incidental to the purpose of the Federal
contract. Because it is incidental, it
would not be subject to the
requirements of section 9002, even
though some of the monies received
under the contract might be used to
purchase the hydraulic fluid used in the
cranes.
In implementing the preferred
procurement program for biobased
products, procuring agencies should
follow their procurement rules and
Office of Federal Procurement Policy
guidance on buying non-biobased
products when biobased products exist
and should document exceptions taken
for price, performance, and availability.
USDA recognizes that the
performance needs for a given
application are important criteria in
making procurement decisions. USDA is
not requiring procuring agencies to limit
their choices to biobased products that
fall under the items for designation in
this proposed rule. Rather, the effect of
the designation of the items is to require
procuring agencies to determine their
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
performance needs, determine whether
there are qualified biobased products
that fall under the designated items that
meet the reasonable performance
standards for those needs, and purchase
such qualified biobased products to the
maximum extent practicable as required
by section 9002.
Section 9002(a)(3)(B), as amended by
the FCEA of 2008, requires USDA to
provide information to procuring
agencies on the availability, relative
price, performance, and environmental
and public health benefits of such items
and to recommend where appropriate
the minimum level of biobased content
to be contained in the procured
products.
It is the responsibility of the
manufacturers to ‘‘self-certify’’ that each
product being offered as a biobased
product for preferred procurement
contains qualifying feedstock. USDA
will develop a monitoring process for
these self-certifications to ensure
manufacturers are using qualifying
feedstocks. If misrepresentations are
found, USDA will remove the subject
biobased product from the preferred
procurement program and may take
further actions as deemed appropriate.
Subcategorization. Most of the items
USDA is considering for designation for
preferred procurement cover a wide
range of products. For some items, there
are groups of products within the item
that meet different markets and uses
and/or different performance
specifications. For example, within the
designated item ‘‘hand cleaners and
sanitizers,’’ some products are required
to meet performance specifications for
sanitizing, while other products do not
need to meet these specifications.
Where such subgroups exist, USDA
intends to create subcategories. For
example, for the item ‘‘hand cleaners
and sanitizers,’’ USDA has determined
it is reasonable to create a ‘‘hand
cleaner’’ subcategory and a ‘‘hand
sanitizer’’ subcategory. Sanitizing
specifications would be applicable to
the latter subcategory, but not the
former. In sum, USDA looks at the
products within each item to evaluate
whether there are groups of products
within the item that meet different
performance specifications and, where
USDA finds this type of difference, it
intends to create subcategories.
For some items, however, USDA may
not have sufficient information at the
time of proposal to create subcategories
within an item. For example, USDA
may know that there are different
performance specifications that deicing
products are required to meet, but it has
only information on one type of deicing
product. In such instances, USDA may
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
either designate the item without
creating subcategories (i.e., defer the
creation of subcategories) or designate
one subcategory and defer designation
of other subcategories within the item
until additional information is obtained.
Within today’s proposed rule, USDA
is not proposing subcategories for any of
the nine items being proposed for
designation, but is requesting specific
comments on the appropriateness of
creating subcategories within several
items.
Minimum Biobased Contents. The
minimum biobased contents being
proposed with today’s rule are based on
products for which USDA has biobased
content test data. In addition to
considering the biobased content test
data for each item, USDA also considers
other factors including product
performance information and the range,
groupings, and breaks in the biobased
content test data array. Consideration of
this information allows USDA to
establish minimum biobased contents
on a broad set of factors to assist the
Federal procurement community in its
decisions to purchase biobased
products.
USDA makes every effort to obtain
biobased content test data on multiple
products within each item. For most
designated items, USDA has biobased
content test data on more than one
product within a designated item.
However, USDA must rely on biobased
product manufacturers to voluntarily
submit product information and, in
some cases, USDA has been able to
obtain biobased content data for only a
single product within a designated item.
As USDA obtains additional data on the
biobased contents for products within
these designated items, USDA will
evaluate whether the minimum
biobased content for a designated item
will be revised.
USDA anticipates that the minimum
biobased content of an item that is based
on a single product is more likely to
change as additional products within
that item are identified and tested. In
today’s proposed rule, none of the
minimum biobased contents for the
designated items are based on a single
tested product.
Where USDA receives additional
information on biobased content for
products within these proposed items
during the public comment period,
USDA will take that information into
consideration when establishing the
minimum biobased content when the
items are designated in the final
rulemaking.
Overlap with EPA’s Comprehensive
Procurement Guideline program for
recovered content products under the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63299
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Section 6002. Some of the
products that are biobased items
designated for preferred procurement
under the preferred procurement
program may also be items the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has designated under the EPA’s
Comprehensive Procurement Guideline
(CPG) for Products Containing
Recovered Materials. Where that occurs,
an EPA-designated recovered content
product (also known as ‘‘recycled
content products’’ or ‘‘EPA-designated
products’’) has priority in Federal
procurement over the qualifying
biobased product as identified in 7 CFR
§ 2902.2. In situations where it believes
there may be an overlap, USDA is
asking manufacturers of qualifying
biobased products to provide additional
product and performance information to
Federal agencies to assist them in
determining whether the biobased
products in question are, or are not, the
same products for the same uses as the
recovered content products. As this
information becomes available, USDA
will place it on the BioPreferred Web
site with its catalog of qualifying
biobased products.
In cases where USDA believes an
overlap with EPA-designated recovered
content products may occur,
manufacturers are being asked to
indicate the various suggested uses of
their product and the performance
standards against which a particular
product has been tested. In addition,
depending on the type of biobased
product, manufacturers are being asked
to provide other types of information,
such as whether the product contains
fossil energy-based components
(including petroleum, coal, and natural
gas) and whether the product contains
recovered materials. Federal agencies
may also ask manufacturers for
information on a product’s biobased
content and its profile against
environmental and health measures and
life-cycle costs (the Building for
Environmental and Economic
Sustainability (BEES) analysis or ASTM
Standard D7075,’’Standard Practice for
Evaluating and Reporting
Environmental Performance of Biobased
Products,’’ for evaluating and reporting
on environmental performance of
biobased products). Such information
will permit agencies to determine
whether or not an overlap occurs.
Detailed information on the BEES
analytical tool can be found on the Web
site https://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/
software/bees.html. Summary
information on ASTM Standard D7075,
and other ASTM standards, can be
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
63300
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
found on ASTM’s Web site at https://
www.astm.org.
Section 6002 of RCRA requires a
procuring agency procuring an item
designated by EPA generally to procure
such items composed of the highest
percentage of recovered materials
content practicable. However, a
procuring agency may decide not to
procure such an item based on a
determination that the item fails to meet
the reasonable performance standards or
specifications of the procuring agency.
An item with recovered materials
content may not meet reasonable
performance standards or specifications,
for example, if the use of the item with
recovered materials content would
jeopardize the intended end use of the
item.
Where a biobased item is used for the
same purposes and to meet the same
Federal agency performance
requirements as an EPA-designated
recovered content product, the Federal
agency must purchase the recovered
content product. For example, if a
biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used as
a fluid in hydraulic systems and
because ‘‘lubricating oils containing rerefined 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
a Federal agency’s certain
environmental or health performance
requirements that the EPA-designated
recovered content product would not
meet, then the biobased product should
be given preference, subject to cost,
availability, and performance.
This proposed rule designates one
item for preferred procurement for
which there may be overlap with an
EPA-designated recovered content
product. This item is ‘‘gear lubricants,’’
which, depending on how they are
used, may overlap with the EPAdesignated recovered content product
‘‘Re-refined Lubricating Oils.’’ EPA
provides recovered materials content
recommendations for this recovered
content product in a Recovered
Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN I).
The RMAN recommendations for this
CPG product can be found by accessing
EPA’s Web site https://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/non-hw/procure/
products.htm and then clicking on the
appropriate product name.
Federal Government Purchase of
‘‘Green’’ Products. Three components of
the Federal government’s green
purchasing program are the Biobased
Products Preferred Purchasing Program,
the Environmental Protection Agency’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
Comprehensive Procurement Guideline
for Products Containing Recovered
Materials, and the Environmentally
Preferable Products Program. The Office
of the Federal Environmental Executive
(OFEE) and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) encourage agencies
to implement these components
comprehensively when purchasing
products and services.
Procuring agencies should note that
not all biobased products are
‘‘environmentally preferable.’’ For
example, unless cleaning products
contain no or reduced levels of metals
and toxic and hazardous constituents,
they can be harmful to aquatic life, the
environment, and/or workers.
Household cleaning products that are
formulated to be disinfectants are
required, under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
to be registered with EPA and must
meet specific labeling requirements
warning of the potential risks associated
with misuse of such products. When
purchasing environmentally preferable
cleaning products, many Federal
agencies specify that products must
meet Green Seal standards 1 for
institutional cleaning products or that
products must have been reformulated
in accordance with recommendations
from the U.S. EPA’s Design for the
Environment (DfE) program. Both the
Green Seal standards and the DfE
program identify chemicals of concern
in cleaning products. These include
zinc and other metals, formaldehyde,
ammonia, alkyl phenol ethoxylates,
ethylene glycol ethers, and volatile
organic compounds. In addition, both
require that cleaning products have
neutral or less caustic pH.
On the other hand, some biobased
products may be better for the
environment than some products that
meet Green Seal standards for
institutional cleaning products or that
have been reformulated in accordance
with EPA’s DfE program. To fully
compare products, one must look at the
‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts of the
manufacture, use, and disposal of
products. Biobased products that will be
available for preferred procurement
under this program have been assessed
as to their ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts.
One consideration of a product’s
impact on the environment is whether
(and to what degree) it introduces new,
fossil carbon into the atmosphere.
Qualifying biobased products offer the
user the opportunity to manage the
carbon cycle and limit the introduction
of new, fossil carbon into the
1 Reference to these standards does not represent
or imply any endorsement by USDA.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
atmosphere, whereas non-biobased
products derived from fossil fuels add
new, fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
Manufacturers of qualifying biobased
products under the preferred
procurement program will be able to
provide, at the request of Federal
agencies, factual information on
environmental and human health effects
of their products, including the results
of the BEES analysis, which examines
11 different environmental parameters,
including human health, or the
comparable ASTM D7075. Therefore,
USDA encourages Federal procurement
agencies to examine all available
information on the environmental and
human health effects of products when
making their purchasing decisions.
Other Preferred Procurement
Programs. Federal procurement officials
should also note that biobased products
may be available for purchase by
Federal agencies through the AbilityOne
Program (formerly known as the JavitsWagner-O’Day (JWOD) program). Under
this program, members of organizations
including the National Industries for the
Blind (NIB) and the National Institute
for the Severely Handicapped (NISH)
offer products and services for preferred
procurement by Federal agencies. A
search of the AbilityOne Program’s
JWOD online catalog (https://
www.jwodcatalog.com) indicated that
three of the items being proposed today
(‘‘general purpose household cleaners’’,
‘‘industrial cleaners’’, and
‘‘multipurpose cleaners’’) are available
through the AbilityOne Program. While
none of the specific products within
these items are identified in the JWOD
online catalog as being biobased
products, there currently are biobased
cleaning products available from at least
one NIB affiliate. Also, because
additional categories of products are
frequently added to the AbilityOne
Program, it is possible that biobased
products within other items being
proposed for designation today may be
available through the AbilityOne
Program in the future. Procurement of
biobased products through the
AbilityOne Program would further the
objectives of both the AbilityOne
Program and the preferred procurement
program.
Interagency Council. USDA has
created, and is chairing, an ‘‘interagency
council’’ with membership selected
from among Federal stakeholders to the
preferred procurement program. To
augment its own research, USDA
consults with this council in identifying
the order of item designation,
manufacturers producing and marketing
products that fall within an item
proposed for designation, performance
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
standards used by Federal agencies
evaluating products to be procured, and
warranty information used by
manufacturers of end user equipment
and other products with regard to
biobased products.
Future Designations. In making future
designations, USDA will continue to
conduct market searches to identify
manufacturers of biobased products
within items. USDA will then contact
the identified manufacturers to solicit
samples of their products for voluntary
submission for biobased content testing
and for the BEES analytical tool. Based
on these results, USDA will then
propose new items for designation for
preferred procurement.
As stated in the preamble to the first
six items designated for preferred
procurement (71 FR 13686, March 16,
2006), USDA plans to identify
approximately 10 items in each future
rulemaking. USDA has developed a
preliminary list of items for future
designation. This list is available on the
BioPreferred Web site. While this list
presents an initial prioritization of items
for designation, USDA cannot identify
with certainty which items will be
presented in each of the future
rulemakings. Items may be added or
dropped and the information necessary
to designate an item may take more time
to obtain than an item lower on the
prioritization list.
III. Summary of Today’s Proposed Rule
USDA is proposing to designate the
following nine items for preferred
procurement: Chain and cable
lubricants; corrosion preventatives; food
cleaners; forming lubricants; gear
lubricants; general purpose household
cleaners; industrial cleaners;
multipurpose cleaners; and parts wash
solutions. USDA is also proposing
minimum biobased content for each of
these items (see Section IV.C). Lastly,
USDA is proposing a date by which
Federal agencies must incorporate
designated items into their procurement
specifications (see Section IV.D).
In today’s proposed rule, USDA is
providing information on its findings as
to the availability, economic and
technical feasibility, environmental and
public health benefits, and life-cycle
costs for each of the designated items.
Information on the availability, relative
price, performance, and environmental
and public health benefits of individual
products within each of these items is
not presented in this notice. Further,
USDA has reached an agreement with
manufacturers not to publish their
names in the Federal Register when
designating items. This agreement was
reached to encourage manufacturers to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
submit products for testing to support
the designation of an item. Once an item
has been designated, USDA will
encourage the manufacturers of
products within the designated item to
voluntarily make their names and other
contact information available for the
BioPreferred Web site.
Warranties. Some of the items,
including subcategories, being proposed
for designation today may affect
maintenance warranties. As time and
resources allow, USDA will work with
original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) on addressing any effect the use
of biobased products may have on their
maintenance warranties. At this time,
however, USDA does not have
information available as to whether or
not OEMs will state that the use of these
products will void their maintenance
warranties. This does not mean that use
of biobased products will void
warranties, only that USDA does not
currently have such information. USDA
encourages manufacturers of biobased
products to test their products against
all relevant standards, including those
that affect warranties, and to work with
OEMs to ensure that biobased products
will not void maintenance warranties
when used. Whenever manufacturers of
biobased products find that existing
performance standards for maintenance
warranties are not relevant or
appropriate for biobased products,
USDA is willing to assist them in
working with the appropriate OEMs to
develop tests that are relevant and
appropriate for the end uses in which
biobased products are intended. If, in
spite of these efforts, there is
insufficient information regarding the
use of a biobased product and its effect
of maintenance warranties, USDA notes
that the procurement agent would not
be required to buy such a product. As
information is available on warranties,
USDA will make such information
available on the BioPreferred Web site.
Additional Information. USDA is
working with manufacturers and
vendors to make all relevant product
and manufacturer contact information
available on the BioPreferred Web site
before a procuring agency asks for it, in
order to make the preferred program
more efficient. Steps USDA has
implemented, or will implement,
include: Making direct contact with
submitting companies through e-mail
and phone conversations to encourage
completion of product listing;
coordinating outreach efforts with
intermediate material producers to
encourage participation of their
customer base; conducting targeted
outreach with industry and commodity
groups to educate stakeholders on the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63301
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.biopreferred.gov.
Comments. USDA invites comment
on the proposed designation of these
items, including the definition,
proposed minimum biobased content,
and any of the relevant analyses
performed during the selection of these
items. In addition, USDA invites
comments and information in the
following areas:
1. One item, ‘‘gear lubricants,’’ may
overlap with one of the products
designated under EPA’s Comprehensive
Procurement Guideline for Products
Containing Recovered Material. To help
procuring agencies in making their
purchasing decisions between biobased
products within the proposed
designated items that overlap with
products containing recovered material,
USDA is requesting product specific
information on unique performance
attributes, environmental and human
health effects, disposal costs, and other
attributes that would distinguish
biobased products from products
containing recovered material as well as
non-biobased products.
2. We have attempted to identify
relevant and appropriate performance
standards and other relevant measures
of performance for each of the proposed
items. If you know of other such
standards or relevant measures of
performance for any of the proposed
items, USDA requests that you submit
information identifying such standards
and measures, including their name
(and other identifying information as
necessary), identifying who is using the
standard/measure, and describing the
circumstances under which the product
is being used.
3. Many biobased products within the
items being proposed for designation
will have positive environmental and
human health attributes. USDA is
seeking comments on such attributes in
order to provide additional information
on the BioPreferred Web site. This
information will then be available to
Federal procuring agencies and will
assist them in making ‘‘best value’’
purchase decisions. When possible,
please provide appropriate
documentation to support the
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
63302
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
environmental and human health
attributes you describe.
4. Several items (i.e., ‘‘corrosion
preventatives,’’ ‘‘industrial cleaners,’’
and ‘‘multipurpose cleaners’’) have
wide ranges of tested biobased contents.
For the reasons discussed later in this
preamble, USDA is proposing minimum
biobased content levels for these items
that would allow a high percentage of
the tested products to be eligible for
preferred procurement. USDA welcomes
comments on the appropriateness of the
proposed minimum biobased contents
for these items and whether there are
potential subcategories within the items
that should be considered.
5. USDA considered combining the
proposed items ‘‘gear lubricants,’’
‘‘chain and cable lubricants,’’ and
‘‘forming lubricants’’ into a single
designated item with multiple
subcategories. The decision to propose
the items separately was based largely
on the differences in functional
performance between the items. While
the basic purpose of products within
each of these items is to provide
lubrication, the applications and the
conditions under which they perform
are very different. USDA requests
comments from procuring agencies and
manufacturers of products within these
items specifically addressing the
advantages and disadvantages of these
items being designated separately versus
combined into a single item with
subcategories.
All comments should be submitted as
directed in the ADDRESSES section
above.
To assist you in developing your
comments, the background information
used in proposing these items for
designation has been assembled in a
technical support document, ‘‘Technical
Support for Proposed Rule—Round 5
Designated Items,’’ which is available
on the BioPreferred Web site. The
technical support document can be
located by clicking on the Proposed and
Final Regulations link on the left side of
the BioPreferred Web site’s home page
(https://www.biopreferred.gov). At the
BioPreferred Web site, click on the
Proposed and Final Regulations link on
the left side of the page. At the next
screen, click on the Supporting
Documentation link under Round 5
Designated Items under the Proposed
Regulations section. This will bring you
to the link to the technical support
document.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum
Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
In order to designate items (generic
groupings of specific products such as
crankcase oils or products that contain
qualifying biobased fibers) for preferred
procurement, section 9002 requires
USDA to consider: (1) The availability
of items and (2) the economic and
technological feasibility of using the
items, including the life-cycle costs of
the items.
In considering an item’s availability,
USDA uses several sources of
information. USDA performs Internet
searches, contacts trade associations
(such as the Bio organization) and
commodity groups, searches the
Thomas Register (a database, used as a
resource for finding companies and
products manufactured in North
America, containing over 173,000
entries), and contacts individual
manufacturers and vendors to identify
those manufacturers and vendors with
biobased products within items being
considered for designation. USDA uses
the results of these same searches to
determine if an item is generally
available.
In considering an item’s economic
and technological feasibility, USDA
examines evidence pointing to the
general commercial use of an item and
its cost and performance characteristics.
This information is obtained from the
sources used to assess an item’s
availability. Commercial use, in turn, is
evidenced by any manufacturer and
vendor information on the availability,
relative prices, and performance of their
products as well as by evidence of an
item being purchased by a procuring
agency or other entity, where available.
In sum, USDA considers an item
economically and technologically
feasible for purposes of designation if
products within that item are being
offered and used in the marketplace.
In considering the life-cycle costs of
items proposed for designation, USDA
uses the BEES analytical tool to test
individual products within each
proposed item. The BEES analytical tool
measures the environmental
performance and the economic
performance of a product.
Environmental performance is
measured in the BEES analytical tool
using the internationally-standardized
and science-based, life-cycle assessment
approach specified in the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)
14000 standards. The BEES
environmental performance analysis,
which includes human health as one of
its components, is a ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
assessment of a product. In it, all stages
in the life of a product are analyzed:
Raw material production; manufacture;
transportation; installation; use; and
recycling and waste management. The
time period over which environmental
performance is measured begins with
raw material production and ends with
disposal (waste management). The BEES
environmental performance analysis
also addresses products made from
biobased feedstocks.
Economic performance in the BEES
analysis is measured using the ASTM
Standard E917, ‘‘Standard Practice for
Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings
and Building Systems,’’ which covers
the costs of initial investment,
replacement, operation, maintenance
and repair, and disposal. The time frame
for economic performance extends from
the purchase of the product to final
disposal. USDA then utilizes the BEES
results of individual products within a
designated item in its consideration of
the life-cycle costs at the item level.
The environmental performance
results are reported as both an impact
value and as an environmental
performance score for 12 different
environmental impact areas:
• Acidification,
• Criteria pollutants,
• Ecological toxicity,
• Eutrophication,
• Fossil fuel depletion,
• Global warming,
• Habitat alteration,
• Human health,
• Indoor air quality,
• Ozone depletion,
• Smog, and
• Water intake.
For each environmental impact area,
BEES estimates the impact a product
has in an area using certain units to
standardize impacts. For example,
acidification is measured as ‘‘millimoles
of hydrogen equivalents,’’ while
eutrophication is measured as ‘‘grams of
nitrogen equivalents.’’ Thus, for
acidification, BEES estimates how many
millimoles of hydrogen equivalents and
how many grams of nitrogen equivalents
a product generates as the result of its
production and use. These values are
referred to as ‘‘impact values’’ and are
calculated on a per functional unit
basis. For example, the impact value for
eutrophication for a chain and cable
lubricant product was estimated to be
105 grams of nitrogen equivalents for
one gallon of product (the functional
unit).
The impact values for a product are
then used to determine the
environmental performance scores of a
product within each of the 12
environmental impact areas. The
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
environmental performance score is a
measure of the share a product
contributes towards the annual per
capita U.S. environmental impact in one
of the 12 environmental impact areas.
For example, the global warming impact
value of a chain and cable lubricant
product was estimated to be 9,710 grams
of carbon dioxide equivalents. The total
amount of carbon dioxide equivalents
emitted in the United States in one year
is divided by the U.S. population to
yield a ‘‘global warming per person’’
value. The product’s global warming
impact value is then divided by the
‘‘global warming per person’’ value to
derive the product’s share of global
warming. Specifically, for this example,
the global warming environmental
performance score is estimated to be
0.0061. That is, every one gallon of this
chain and cable lubricant is estimated to
contribute 0.0061 percent to the global
warming per person value.
For both the impact values and the
environmental performance scores, the
BEES analysis uses a single unit of
comparison associated with each
designated item. The basis for the unit
of comparison is the ‘‘functional unit,’’
defined so that the products compared
within an item are true substitutes for
one another. If significant differences
have been identified in the useful lives
of alternative products within a
designated item (e.g., if one product
lasts twice as long as another), the
functional unit includes reference to a
time dimension to account for the
frequency of product replacement. The
functional unit also accounts for
products used in different amounts for
equivalent service. For example, one
surface coating product may be
environmentally and economically
preferable to another on a pound-forpound basis, but may require twice the
mass to cover one square foot of surface,
and last half as long, as the other
product. To account for these
performance differences, the functional
unit for the surface coating item could
be ‘‘one square foot of application for 20
years’’ instead of ‘‘one pound of surface
coating product.’’ The functional unit
provides the critical reference point to
which all BEES results for products
within an item are scaled. Because
functional units vary from item to item,
performance comparisons are valid only
among products within a designated
item.
The complete results of the BEES
analysis, extrapolated to the item level,
for each item proposed for designation
in today’s proposed rule can be found
in the technical support document for
this proposed rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
As discussed above, the BEES
analysis includes information on the
environmental performance, human
health impacts, and economic
performance. In addition, ASTM
Standard D7075, which manufacturers
may use in lieu of the BEES analytical
tool, provides similar information.
USDA is working with manufacturers
and vendors to make this information
available on the BioPreferred Web site
in order to make the preferred
procurement program more efficient.
As discussed earlier, USDA has also
implemented, or will implement,
several other steps intended to educate
the manufacturers and other
stakeholders on the benefits of this
program and the need to make this
information, including manufacturer
contact information, available on the
BioPreferred Web site in order to then
make it available to procurement
officials. Additional information on
specific products within the items
proposed for designation may also be
obtained directly from the
manufacturers of the products. USDA
has also provided a link on the
BioPreferred Web site to the Defense
Standardization Program and to General
Services Administration (GSA)-related
standards lists used as guidance when
procuring products. These lists can be
accessed through the ‘‘Selling to the
Federal Government’’ link on the
BioPreferred Web site.
USDA recognizes that information
related to the functional performance of
biobased products is a primary factor in
making the decision to purchase these
products. USDA is gathering
information on industry standard test
methods and performance standards
that manufacturers are using to evaluate
the functional performance of their
products. (Test methods are procedures
used to provide information on a certain
attribute of a product. For example, a
test method might determine how many
bacteria are killed. Performance
standards identify the level at which a
product must perform in order for it to
be ‘‘acceptable’’ to the entity that set the
performance standard. For example, a
performance standard might require that
a certain percentage (e.g., 95 percent) of
the bacteria must be killed through the
use of the product.) The primary source
of information on these test methods
and performance standards are
manufacturers of biobased products
within these items. Additional test
methods and performance standards are
also identified during meetings of the
Interagency council and during the
review process for each proposed rule.
We have listed, under the detailed
discussion of each item proposed for
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63303
designation (presented in Section IV.B),
the functional performance test
methods, performance standards,
product certifications, and other
measures of performance associated
with the functional aspects of products
identified during the development of
this Federal Register notice for these
items.
While this process identifies many of
the relevant test methods and standards,
USDA recognizes that those identified
herein do not represent all of the
methods and standards that may be
applicable for a designated item or for
any individual product within the
designated item. As noted earlier in this
preamble, USDA is requesting
identification of any other relevant
performance standards and measures of
performance. As the program becomes
fully implemented, these and other
additional relevant performance
standards will be available on the
BioPreferred Web site.
In gathering information relevant to
the analyses discussed above for this
proposed rule, USDA has made
extensive efforts to contact and request
information and product samples within
the items proposed for designation. For
product information, USDA has
attempted to contact representatives of
the manufacturers of biobased products
identified by the preferred procurement
program. For product samples on which
to conduct biobased content tests and
BEES analysis, USDA has attempted to
obtain samples and BEES input
information for at least five different
suppliers of products within each item
in today’s proposed rule. However,
because the submission of information
and samples is on a strictly voluntary
basis, USDA was able to obtain
information and samples only from
those manufacturers who were willing
voluntarily to invest the resources
required to gather and submit the
information and samples. The data
presented are all the data that were
submitted in response to USDA requests
for information from manufacturers of
the products within the items proposed
for designation. While USDA would
prefer to have complete data on the full
range of products within each item, the
data that were submitted are sufficient
to support designation of the items in
today’s proposed rule.
To propose an item for designation,
USDA must have sufficient information
on a sufficient number of products
within an item to be able to assess its
availability and its economic and
technological feasibility, including its
life-cycle costs. For some items, there
may be numerous products available.
For other items, there may be very few
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
63304
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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 it
is appropriate to designate an item or
subcategory for preferred procurement
even when there is only a single product
with a single supplier. However, USDA
has also determined that in such
situations it is appropriate to defer the
effective preferred procurement date
until such time that more than one
supplier is identified in order to provide
choice to procuring agencies. Similarly,
the documented availability, benefits,
and life-cycle costs of even a very small
percentage of all products that may exist
within an item are also considered
sufficient to support designation.
B. Items Proposed for Designation
USDA uses a model (as summarized
below) to identify and prioritize items
for designation. Through this model,
USDA has identified over 100 items for
potential designation under the
preferred procurement program. A list
of these items and information on the
model can be accessed on the
BioPreferred Web site at https://
www.biopreferred.gov.
In general, items are developed and
prioritized for designation by evaluating
them against program criteria
established by USDA and by gathering
information from other government
agencies, private industry groups, and
manufacturers. These evaluations begin
by look at the cost, performance, and
availability of products within each
item. USDA then considers the
following points:
• Are there manufacturers interested
in providing the necessary test
information on products within a
particular item?
• Are there a number of
manufacturers producing biobased
products in this item?
• Are there products available in this
item?
• What level of difficulty is expected
when designating this item?
• Is there Federal demand for the
product?
• Are Federal procurement personnel
looking for biobased products?
• Will an item create a high demand
for biobased feed stock?
• Does manufacturing of products
within this item increase potential for
rural development?
After completing this evaluation,
USDA prioritizes the list of items for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
designation. USDA then gathers
information on products within the
highest priority items and, as sufficient
information becomes available for
groups of approximately 10 items, a new
rulemaking package is developed to
designate the items within that group.
USDA points out that the list of items
may change, with items being added or
dropped, and that the order in which
items are proposed for designation is
likely to change because the information
necessary to designate an item may take
more time to obtain than an item lower
on the list.
In today’s proposed rule, USDA is
proposing to designate the following
items for the preferred procurement
program: Chain and cable lubricants;
corrosion preventatives; food cleaners;
forming lubricants; gear lubricants;
general purpose household cleaners;
industrial cleaners; multipurpose
cleaners; and parts wash solutions.
USDA has determined that each of these
proposed items meets the necessary
statutory requirements—namely, that
they are being produced with biobased
products and that their procurement by
procuring agencies will carry out the
following objectives of section 9002:
• To increase demand for biobased
products, which would in turn increase
demand for agricultural commodities
that can serve as feedstocks for the
production of biobased products;
• To spur development of the
industrial base through value-added
agricultural processing and
manufacturing in rural communities;
and
• To enhance the Nation’s energy
security by substituting biobased
products for products derived from
imported oil and natural gas.
Further, USDA has sufficient
information on the items to determine
their availability and to conduct the
requisite analyses to determine their
biobased content and their economic
and technological feasibility, including
life-cycle costs.
Overlap with EPA’s Comprehensive
Procurement Guideline program for
recovered content products. In today’s
proposed rule, one item may overlap
with the EPA-designated recovered
content product ‘‘Re-refined Lubricating
Oils.’’ This item is ‘‘gear lubricants.’’
For this item, USDA is requesting that
information on the qualifying biobased
‘‘gear lubricants’’ be made available by
their manufacturers to assist Federal
agencies in determining if an overlap
exists between ‘‘gear lubricants’’ and
‘‘Re-refined Lubricating Oils’’ (the
applicable EPA-designated recovered
content product).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
As noted earlier in this preamble,
USDA is requesting information on
overlap situations to further help
procuring agencies make informed
decisions when faced with purchasing a
recovered content material product or a
biobased product. As this information is
developed, USDA will make it available
on the BioPreferred Web site.
Exemptions. As explained in the May
14, 2008 Federal Register notice (73 FR
27928) promulgating the Round 2
designated items, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) and the Department of Defense
(DoD) are exempt from the procurement
preference requirements that would be
afforded to the items contained in
today’s proposed rule with respect to
products used in space applications and
combat and combat-related applications,
respectively. In other words, they would
apply to operations underlying NASA’s
and DoD’s mission, such as janitorial
services contracts, but not to uses on the
space shuttle and military equipment.
These ‘‘blanket’’ exemptions are
contained in subpart A of part 2902.
Therefore, today’s proposed rule would
not apply to NASA and DoD, as
provided in subpart A of part 2902.
Although each item in today’s
proposed rule would be exempt from
the procurement preference
requirement, this exemption does not
extend to contractors performing work
for NASA or DoD other than direct
maintenance and support of the space
shuttle and combat equipment. For
example, if a contractor is producing a
part for use on the space shuttle, the
metalworking fluid the contractor uses
to produce the part should be biobased
(provided it meets the specifications for
metalworking). The exemption does
apply, however, if the product being
purchased by the contractor is for use in
combat or combat-related missions or
for use in space applications. For
example, if the part being produced by
the contractor would actually be part of
the space shuttle, then the exemption
applies.
USDA points out that it is not the
intent of these exemptions to imply that
biobased products are inferior to nonbiobased products. If manufacturers of
biobased products can meet the
concerns of these two agencies, USDA is
willing to reconsider such exemptions
on an item-by-item basis.
Each of the proposed designated items
are discussed in the following sections.
1. Chain and Cable Lubricants
Chain and cable lubricants are
products designed to provide
lubrication for such applications as bar
and roller chains, sprockets, and wire
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ropes and cables. The products may also
be designed to prevent rust and
corrosion in these applications.
USDA identified 20 different
manufacturers producing 37 individual
biobased chain and cable lubricant
products. These 20 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all
manufacturers of biobased chain and
cable lubricants, merely those identified
during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially.
In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified two test methods
(as shown below) used in evaluating
products within this item. While there
may be additional test methods, as well
as performance standards, product
certifications, and other measures of
performance, applicable to products
within this item, the two test methods
identified by manufacturers of products
within this item are:
Test Methods
• Shake Flask Test (CG–2000) used by
the lubricant industry to evaluate
biodegradability (Environmental
Protection Agency #560/6–82–003); and
• Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms (Environmental Protection
Agency #600/4–90–027).
USDA contacted procurement
officials with various procuring agencies
including the GSA, several offices
within the Defense Logistics Agency,
the OFEE, USDA Departmental
Administration, the National Park
Service, EPA, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and OMB in an effort to
gather information on the purchases of
chain and cable lubricants and products
within the other eight items proposed
for designation today. Communications
with these officials led to the conclusion
that obtaining credible current usage
statistics and specific potential markets
within the Federal government for
biobased products within the proposed
designated items is not possible at this
time.
Most of the contacted officials
reported that procurement data are
reported in higher level groupings of
materials and supplies than the
proposed designated items. Using terms
that best match the items in today’s
proposed rule, USDA queried the GSA
database for Federal purchases of
products within today’s proposed items.
The results indicate purchases of
products within items in today’s
proposed rule. The results of this
inquiry can be found in the technical
support document for this proposed
rule. Also, the purchasing of such
materials as part of contracted services
and with individual purchase cards
used to purchase products locally
further obscures credible data on
purchases of specific products.
63305
USDA also investigated the Web site
FEDBIZOPPS.gov, a site which lists
Federal contract purchase opportunities
greater than $25,000. The information
provided on this Web site, however, is
for broad categories of products rather
than the specific types of products that
are included in today’s proposed rule.
Therefore, USDA has been unable to
obtain data on the amount of chain and
cable lubricants purchased by procuring
agencies. However, Federal agencies
perform, or procure contract services to
perform, activities, such as
maintenance, clean-up, and tree
removal, in which chain and cable
lubricants are used. For example,
although quantities were not obtained,
the National Park Service is known to be
using biobased chain and cable
lubricants at some of its parks. Thus,
there is a need for chain and cable
lubricants. Designation of ‘‘chain and
cable lubricants’’ will promote the use
of biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life-cycle
costs of biobased chain and cable
lubricants was performed for three of
the products using the BEES analytical
tool. The impact values for these three
lubricants are presented in Table 1a.
The environmental performance scores
are presented in Table 1b and in Figure
1.
TABLE 1A—IMPACT VALUES FOR CHAIN AND CABLE LUBRICANTS
Environmental impact area
Units
Sample A
Acidification .............................
Criteria Air Pollutants ..............
Ecological Toxicity ..................
Eutrophication .........................
Fossil Fuel Depletion ..............
Global Warming ......................
Habitat Alteration ....................
Human Health .........................
Indoor Air ................................
Ozone Depletion .....................
Smog .......................................
Water Intake ...........................
millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents ..................................
micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years ......................................
grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid ............................
grams of nitrogen equivalent ..................................................
megajoules of surplus energy ................................................
grams of carbon dioxide equivalents .....................................
threatened and endangered species count ...........................
grams of toluene equivalent ...................................................
grams of total volatile organic compounds ............................
grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents .........................
grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents ......................................
liters of water ..........................................................................
7,210
0.532
77.1
105
43.6
9,710
0
61,500
0
1.15E–07
124
1,430
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................
Sample B
6,470
0.467
69.7
94.6
39.9
8,660
0
54,800
0
9.69E–08
112
1,290
Sample C
5,130
0.840
1,950
246
83.6
29,500
0
316,000
0
1.30E–04
95.9
6,530
1 gallon.
TABLE 1B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR CHAIN AND CABLE LUBRICANTS
Environmental impact area
Sample A
Sample B
Sample C
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Total Environmental Performance Score 1 ............................................................................
0.0674
0.0606
0.4202
Acidification (5%) ............................................................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .............................................................................................
Ecological Toxicity (11%) ...............................................................................................
Eutrophication (5%) ........................................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .............................................................................................
Global Warming (16%) ...................................................................................................
Habitat Alteration (16%) .................................................................................................
Human Health (11%) ......................................................................................................
0.0000
0.0002
0.0104
0.0272
0.0062
0.0061
0.0000
0.0043
0.0000
0.0001
0.0094
0.0246
0.0056
0.0054
0.0000
0.0038
0.0000
0.0003
0.2630
0.0640
0.0118
0.0184
0.0000
0.0219
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
63306
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR CHAIN AND CABLE LUBRICANTS—Continued
Environmental impact area
Sample A
Indoor Air (11%) .............................................................................................................
Ozone Depletion (5%) ....................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ......................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ..........................................................................................................
Sample B
0.0000
0.0000
0.0049
0.0081
0.0000
0.0000
0.0044
0.0073
Sample C
0.0000
0.0000
0.0038
0.0370
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 ....................................................................
10.17
13.78
20.20
First Cost ........................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) .........................................................................................................
10.17
(3)
13.78
(3 )
20.20
( 3)
Functional Unit .......................................................................................................................
1 gallon.
1 Numbers
As seen in Table 1b, for the analyzed
chain and cable lubricants, the total
environmental performance score ranges
from 0.0606 to 0.4202 points per gallon
of product and the life-cycle costs range
from $10.17 to $20.20 (present value
dollars) per gallon of product.
When evaluating the environmental
performance scores presented in Table
1b, as well as in the subsequent tables
presented in this preamble, it should be
noted that comparisons of the
environmental performance scores are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
valid only among products within a
designated item. Thus, comparisons of
the scores presented in Table 1b and the
scores presented in tables for other
proposed designated items are not
meaningful. On the other hand, one can
compare the impact values reported in
Table 1a with those in the other,
corresponding impact value tables. But
such a comparison would only be useful
if the compared products would be used
as substitutes for each other.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The numbers in parentheses following
each of the 12 environmental impacts
listed in the tables presenting the
environmental performance scores in
this preamble indicate weighting
factors. The weighting factors represent
the relative importance of the 12
environmental parameters, including
human health impacts, which
contribute to the BEES environmental
performance score. They are derived
from lists of the relative importance of
these parameters developed by the EPA
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
EP23OC08.000
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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.
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Science Advisory Board for the purpose
of advising EPA as to how best to
allocate its limited resources among
environmental impact areas. Note that a
lower environmental performance score
is better than a higher score.
Life-cycle costs presented in the
tables in this preamble are per the
appropriate functional unit for the
proposed designated item. Future costs
are discounted to present value using
the OMB discount rate of 3.9 percent.
Present value dollars presented in this
preamble represent the sum of all costs
associated with a product over a fixed
period of time, including any applicable
costs for purchase, installation,
replacement, operation, maintenance
and repair, and disposal. Present value
dollars presented in this preamble
reflect 2006 dollars. Dollars are
expressed in present value terms to
adjust for the effects of inflation. The
complete results of the BEES analysis,
extrapolated to the item level, for each
item proposed for designation in today’s
proposed rule can be found at https://
www.biopreferred.gov.
2. Corrosion Preventatives
Corrosion preventatives are products
used to prevent the deterioration
(corrosion) of metals.
USDA identified 15 different
manufacturers producing 97 individual
biobased corrosion preventatives
products. These 15 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all
manufacturers of biobased corrosion
preventatives, merely those identified
during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially.
In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified several test
methods and one performance standard
used in evaluating products within this
item. While there may be additional test
methods, as well as performance
standards, product certifications, and
other measures of performance,
applicable to products within this item,
the test methods and performance
standard identified by manufacturers of
products within this item, are:
Test Methods
• ASTM D1735, ‘‘Standard Practice
for Testing Water Resistance of Coatings
Using Water Fog Apparatus;’’
• ASTM D1748, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Rust Protection by Metal
Preservatives in the Humidity Cabinet;’’
• ASTM D445, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Kinematic Viscosity of
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and
the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity);’’
• ASTM D92, ‘‘Standard Test Method
for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland
Open Cup Tester;’’ and
• ASTM D97, ‘‘Standard Test Method
for Pour Point of Petroleum Products.’’
63307
Performance Standards
• National Association of Corrosion
Engineers #TM0374–2001, Laboratory
Screening Tests to Determine the Ability
of Scale Inhibitors to Prevent the
Precipitation of Calcium Sulfate and
Calcium Carbonate from Solution (for
Oil and Gas Production Systems).
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government using
the procedure described in the section
on ‘‘Chain and Cable Lubricants’’. These
attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, various Federal agencies
procure corrosion preventatives, or
procure contract services such as
maintenance services, that use corrosion
preventatives. Thus, they have a need
for corrosion preventatives. Designation
of ‘‘corrosive preventatives’’ will
promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this
program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life-cycle
costs of corrosion preventatives was
performed for two of the products using
the BEES analytical tool. The impact
values for these two corrosion
preventatives are presented in Table 2a.
The environmental performance scores
are presented in Table 2b and in Figure
2.
TABLE 2A—IMPACT VALUES FOR CORROSION PREVENTATIVES
Environmental impact area
Units
Acidification ......................................
Criteria Air Pollutants .......................
Ecological Toxicity ...........................
Eutrophication ..................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion .......................
Global Warming ...............................
Habitat Alteration .............................
Human Health ..................................
Indoor Air .........................................
Ozone Depletion ..............................
Smog ................................................
Water Intake ....................................
millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents .....................................................
micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years .........................................................
grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid ...............................................
grams of nitrogen equivalent .....................................................................
megajoules of surplus energy ...................................................................
grams of carbon dioxide equivalents ........................................................
threatened and endangered species count ..............................................
grams of toluene equivalent ......................................................................
grams of total volatile organic compounds ...............................................
grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents ............................................
grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents .........................................................
liters of water .............................................................................................
Functional Unit .................................
Sample A
13,300
1.79
141
120
652
19,900
0
559,000
0
1.98E–06
245
1,570
Sample B
26,000
2.18
291
360
301
37,500
0
2.36E+07
0
1.88E–05
454
4,870
5 gallons.
TABLE 2B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR CORROSION PREVENTATIVES
Environmental impact area
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Total Environmental Performance
Score 1
Sample A
Sample B
..........................................................................................................
0.2129
0.2684
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%) ...........................................................................................................................................
0
0.0006
0.0190
0.0312
0.0924
0.0124
0
0.0387
0
0
0.0007
0.0389
0.0937
0.0431
0.0236
0
0.0228
0
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:21 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
63308
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR CORROSION PREVENTATIVES—Continued
Environmental impact area
Sample A
Ozone Depletion (5%) ..................................................................................................................................
Smog (6%) ....................................................................................................................................................
Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................
Sample B
0
0.0097
0.0089
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..................................................................................................
114.75
First Cost ......................................................................................................................................................
114.75
Future Cost (3.9%) .......................................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .....................................................................................................................................................
0
0.0180
0.0276
77.09
77.09
(3)
5 gallons.
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.
As seen in Table 2b, the total
environmental performance scores for
the two corrosion preventatives
analyzed are 0.2194 and 0.2684 per five
gallons of product and the respective
life-cycle costs are $114.75 and $77.09
(present value dollars) per five gallons
of product.
3. Food Cleaners
Food cleaners are anti-microbial
products used to clean the outer layer of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
various food products, such as fruits,
vegetables, and meats.
USDA identified 11 different
manufacturers producing 15 individual
biobased food cleaner products. These
11 manufacturers do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased
food cleaners, merely those identified
during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially.
In addition, manufacturers and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
stakeholders identified several test
methods, one performance standard,
and one other measure of performance
used in evaluating products within this
item. While there may be additional test
methods, as well as performance
standards, product certifications, and
other measures of performance
applicable to products within this item,
those identified by manufacturers of
products within this item are:
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
EP23OC08.001
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
2 Costs
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Test Methods
Product Certifications and Other
Measures
• Federal Test Method Standard
#536A, Soap and soap products
(including synthetic detergents)
sampling and testing.
Performance Standards
• Boeing #D6–7127, Cleaning
Interiors of Commercial Transport
Aircraft; and
• South Coast Air Quality
Management District, certification as a
Clean Air Solvent.
• U.S. Navy #Navsea 6840—U.S.
Navy surface ship (non-submarine)
authorized chemical cleaning products
and dispensing systems.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government using
the procedure described in the section
on ‘‘Chain and Cable Lubricants.’’ These
attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies procure such
products or contract for food
63309
preparation services that use such
products. Thus, there is a need for food
cleaners. Designation of biobased ‘‘food
cleaners’’ will promote the use of
biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life-cycle
costs of biobased food cleaners was
performed for one of the products using
the BEES analytical tool. The impact
values for this food cleaner are
presented in Table 3a. The
environmental performance scores are
presented in Table 3b and in Figure 3.
TABLE 3A—IMPACT VALUES FOR FOOD CLEANERS
Environmental impact area
Units
Sample A
Acidification ...............................................
Criteria Air Pollutants ................................
Ecological Toxicity ....................................
Eutrophication ...........................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion ................................
Global Warming ........................................
Habitat Alteration ......................................
Human Health ...........................................
Indoor Air ..................................................
Ozone Depletion .......................................
Smog .........................................................
Water Intake .............................................
millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents ........................................................................
micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years ............................................................................
grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid ..................................................................
grams of nitrogen equivalent .......................................................................................
megajoules of surplus energy ......................................................................................
grams of carbon dioxide equivalents ...........................................................................
threatened and endangered species count .................................................................
grams of toluene equivalent .........................................................................................
grams of total volatile organic compounds ..................................................................
grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents ..............................................................
grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents ............................................................................
liters of water ................................................................................................................
Functional Unit ..........................................
.......................................................................................................................................
81.8
0.0216
0.774
0.104
2.43
148
0
2,110
0
7.98E–08
1.09
4.39
1 gallon.
TABLE 3B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR FOOD CLEANERS
Environmental impact area
Sample A
Total Environmental Performance Score 1 ........................................................................................................................................
0.0006
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%) ......................................................................................................................................................................
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0003
0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 ................................................................................................................................
4.00
First Cost ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) .....................................................................................................................................................................
4.00
(3)
Functional Unit ...................................................................................................................................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
1 Numbers
Gallon of
food cleaner
.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
63310
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
As seen in Table 3b, the total
environmental performance score and
the life-cycle costs of the food cleaner
analyzed are, respectively, 0.0006 points
per gallon of product and $4.00 (present
value dollars) per gallon of product.
4. Forming Lubricants
Forming lubricants are products
designed to provide lubricity during
metalworking applications that are
performed under extreme pressure
conditions. Such applications include
tube bending, stretch forming, press
braking, and swaging.
USDA identified three different
manufacturers producing 13 individual
biobased forming lubricant products.
These three manufacturers do not
necessarily include all manufacturers of
biobased forming lubricants, merely
those identified during USDA
information gathering activities.
within the Federal government using
the procedure described in the section
on ‘‘Chain and Cable Lubricants.’’ These
attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies own and
operate metalworking machinery that
operates under extreme pressure. In
addition, Federal agencies contract for
services involving the use of similar
equipment. Thus, there is a need for
forming lubricants. Designation of
‘‘forming lubricants’’ will promote the
use of biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
Test Methods
human health benefits and the life-cycle
• Boeing #BAC 5001–4 Flareless Tube costs of forming lubricants was
End Fabrication; and
performed for one of the products using
• Testing of chemical substances
the BEES analytical tool. The impact
under the Toxic Substances Control Act values for this forming lubricant are
(EPA #560/6–82–003).
presented in Table 4a. The
USDA attempted to gather data on the environmental performance scores are
presented in Table 4b and in Figure 4.
potential market for biobased products
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially.
In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified two test methods
(as shown below) used in evaluating
products within this item. While there
may be additional test methods, as well
as performance standards, product
certifications, and other measures of
performance applicable to products
within this item, those identified by
manufacturers of products within this
item are:
Environmental impact area
Units
Acidification ...............................................
Criteria Air Pollutants ................................
Ecological Toxicity ....................................
Eutrophication ...........................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion ................................
millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents ........................................................................
micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years ............................................................................
grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid ...................................................................
grams of nitrogen equivalent .......................................................................................
megajoules of surplus energy ......................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
Sample A
23OCP2
1,320
0.267
32.7
11.3
76.0
EP23OC08.002
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
TABLE 4A—IMPACT VALUES FOR FORMING LUBRICANTS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
63311
TABLE 4A—IMPACT VALUES FOR FORMING LUBRICANTS—Continued
Environmental impact area
Units
Sample A
Global Warming ........................................
Habitat Alteration ......................................
Human Health ...........................................
Indoor Air ..................................................
Ozone Depletion .......................................
Smog .........................................................
Water Intake .............................................
grams of carbon dioxide equivalents ...........................................................................
threatened and endangered species count .................................................................
grams of toluene equivalent .........................................................................................
grams of total volatile organic compounds ..................................................................
grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents ..............................................................
grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents ............................................................................
liters of water ................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .....................................................................................................................................................................................
4,450
0
60,000
0
2.59E–05
25.6
164
1 gallon.
TABLE 4B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR FORMING LUBRICANTS
Environmental impact area
Sample A
Total Environmental Performance Score 1 ........................................................................................................................................
0.0271
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%) ......................................................................................................................................................................
0.0000
0.0001
0.0044
0.0029
0.0108
0.0028
0.0000
0.0042
0.0000
0.0000
0.0010
0.0009
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 ................................................................................................................................
18.50
First Cost ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) .....................................................................................................................................................................
18.50
(3)
Functional Unit ...................................................................................................................................................................................
(4)
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.
4 One gallon of forming lubricant.
2 Costs
3 For
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
As seen in Table 4b, the total
environmental performance score and
the life-cycle cost of the submitted
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
forming lubricant are, respectively,
0.0271 points per gallon of product and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$18.50 (present value dollars) per gallon
of product.
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
5. Gear Lubricants
Gear lubricants are substances, such
as greases and oils, which reduce
friction when applied to a toothed
machine part (such as a wheel or
cylinder) that meshes with another
toothed part to transmit motion or to
change speed or direction. Unlike
penetrating lubricants, which would be
applied to frozen gears to loosen them,
gear lubricants are designed to be
applied to functional gears to reduce
friction while in operation.
Qualifying products within this item
may overlap with the EPA-designated
recovered content product: ‘‘Re-refined
Lubricating Oils’’.
USDA identified nine different
manufacturers producing 24 individual
biobased gear lubricant products. These
nine manufacturers do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased
gear lubricants, merely those identified
during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially.
In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified test methods,
performance standards, and other
measures of performance used in
evaluating the performance of products
within this item. While there may be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
additional test methods, as well as
performance standards, product
certifications, and other measures of
performance applicable to products
within this item, those identified by
manufacturers of products within this
item are:
Test Methods
• ASTM D1404/D1404M, ‘‘Standard
Test Method for Estimation of
Deleterious Particles for Lubricating
Grease;’’
• ASTM D2270, ‘‘Standard Practice
for Calculating Viscosity Index from
Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 °C;’’
• ASTM D2619, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Hydrolytic Stability of
Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle
Method);’’
• ASTM D2711, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Demulsibility
Characteristics of Lubricating Oils;’’
• ASTM D445, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Kinematic Viscosity of
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and
the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity);’’
• ASTM D5864, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determining Aerobic
Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or
Their Components;’’
• ASTM D665, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Rust-Preventing
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil
in the Presence of Water;’’
• ASTM D892, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Foaming Characteristics of
Lubricating Oils;’’
• ASTM D92, ‘‘Standard Test Method
for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland
Open Cup Tester;’’
• ASTM D97, ‘‘Standard Test Method
for Pour Point of Petroleum Products;’’
• ASTM D974, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Acid and Base Number by
Color-Indicator Titration;’’
• ASTM D2266, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Wear Preventive
Characteristics of Lubricating Grease
(Four-Ball Method);’’
• Testing of chemical substances
under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(EPA #560/6–82–003);
• International Organization for
Standardization #ISO 150—Specifies
the requirements and the corresponding
methods of test for raw, refined, and
boiled linseed oils for paints and
varnishes;
• DIN 51517—Lubricants—
Lubricating oils—Part 1: Lubricating oils
C Requirements;
• FGZ (DIN51354), Gear wheel
twisting/tension testing machine for
lubricants;
• ISO 46—oil viscosity grade;
• SAE 30—viscosity grade;
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
EP23OC08.003
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
63312
63313
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
• SAE GearGrade 80W90—viscosity
grade; and
• ISO 90—oil viscosity grade.
Performance Standards
• American Petroleum Institute #API
GL–3—Lubricant with light EP effect for
transmissions and non-hypoid gear
drives;
• American Petroleum Institute #API
GL–4—Generally equivalent to military
specification MIL–L–2105 for manual
transmissions and spiral bevel gears
engaged in moderate service (API GL–4
rates a gears lubricant’s performance);
• AGMA 2–8A, R&O and EP gear
lubes grades;
• ANSI/AGMA 9005–E02, Industrial
Gear Lubricant; and
• DB s1.53.101, Meets or exceeds
requirements of David Brown
performance requirement.
Product Certifications and Other
Measures
• American Petroleum Institute #API
GL–1—Designates the type of service
characteristics of automotive spiralbevel and worm gear axles as well as
some manually-operated transmissions
operating under such mild conditions of
low unit pressures and sliding velocities
that straight mineral oil can be used
satisfactorily; and
• American Petroleum Institute #API
GL–2—Designates the type of service
characteristics of automotive type worm
gear axles operating under such
conditions of load, temperature, and
sliding velocities that lubricants
satisfactory for API GL–1 service will
not suffice (obsolete).
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government using
the procedure described in the section
on ‘‘Chain and Cable Lubricants.’’ These
attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, many Federal agencies own or
operate machinery, or procure contract
services that require the use of
machinery, that require gear lubricants.
When EPA researched its designation of
re-refined lubricating oils, including
gear oil, the Defense Logistic Agency
informed EPA that it had specifications
for, and sold, gear oils. Thus, there is a
need for gear lubricants. Designation of
biobased ‘‘gear lubricants’’ will promote
the use of biobased products, furthering
the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life-cycle
costs of biobased gear lubricants was
performed for two of the products using
the BEES analytical tool. The impact
values for these two gear lubricants are
presented in Table 5a. The
environmental performance scores are
presented in Table 5b and in Figure 5.
TABLE 5A—IMPACT VALUES FOR GEAR LUBRICANTS
Environmental
impact area
Units
Acidification ......................................
Criteria Air Pollutants .......................
Ecological Toxicity ...........................
Eutrophication ..................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion .......................
Global Warming ...............................
Habitat Alteration .............................
Human Health ..................................
Indoor Air .........................................
Ozone Depletion ..............................
Smog ................................................
Water Intake ....................................
millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents .....................................................
micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years .........................................................
grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid ...............................................
grams of nitrogen equivalent .....................................................................
megajoules of surplus energy ...................................................................
grams of carbon dioxide equivalents ........................................................
threatened and endangered species count ..............................................
grams of toluene equivalent ......................................................................
grams of total volatile organic compounds ...............................................
grams of chlorofluoro-carbon-11 equivalents ............................................
grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents .........................................................
liters of water .............................................................................................
Sample A
Sample B
25,000
2.79
242
308
479
35,800
0
1,250,000
0
1.35E–06
413
5,900
Functional Unit .........................................................................................................................................................
10,200
2.96
287
47.0
453
34,200
0
553,000
0
1.04E–05
163
633
5 gallons.
TABLE 5B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR GEAR LUBRICANTS
Environmental impact area
Sample A
Sample B
Total Environmental Performance Score 1 ..........................................................................................................
0.3405
0.1856
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%) ........................................................................................................................................
0.0000
0.0009
0.0326
0.0802
0.0679
0.0224
0.0000
0.0867
0.0000
0.0000
0.0164
0.0334
0.0000
0.0009
0.0387
0.0122
0.0641
0.0214
0.0000
0.0383
0.0000
0.0000
0.0064
0.0036
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..................................................................................................
63.08
87.50
First Cost ......................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) .......................................................................................................................................
63.08
(3)
87.50
( 3)
Functional Unit .....................................................................................................................................................
1 Numbers
5 gallons of gear lubricant.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:21 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
As seen in Table 5b, the total
environmental performance scores are
0.1856 and 0.3405 points per five
gallons of product. The life-cycle costs
of the submitted biobased gear
lubricants are $63.08 to $87.50 (present
value dollars) per five gallons of
product.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
6. General Purpose Household Cleaners
General purpose household cleaners
are substances used to clean common
household surfaces found in the living
spaces and on the possessions located in
households or similar settings.
Household cleaner products included in
this item are those general purpose
household cleaners specifically
marketed as suitable for cleaning
common household surfaces. In today’s
proposed rule, the definition of general
purpose household cleaners excludes
products that are formulated for use as
disinfectants. Other products not
included in this item are task-specific
household cleaners, such as scouring
cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners,
upholstery cleaners, laundry and
dishwashing detergents, spot/stain
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:21 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
removers, oven cleaners, and drain
cleaners.
Procuring agencies should note that,
as discussed in Section II of this
preamble, not all biobased cleaning
products are ‘‘environmentally
preferable’’ to non-biobased products.
Unless cleaning products have been
formulated to contain no (or reduced
levels of) metals and toxic and
hazardous constituents, they can be
harmful to aquatic life, the environment,
and/or workers. When purchasing
environmentally preferable cleaning
products, Federal agencies should
compare the ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts
of the manufacture, use, and disposal of
both biobased and non-biobased
products in order to determine which
product is environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 16 different
manufacturers producing 24 individual
biobased general purpose household
cleaner products. These 16
manufacturers do not necessarily
include all manufacturers of biobased
general purpose household cleaners,
merely those identified during USDA
information gathering activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially.
In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified several test
methods, a performance standard, and
one other measure of performance (as
shown below) used in evaluating
products within this item. While there
may be additional test methods, as well
as performance standards, product
certifications, and other measures of
performance applicable to products
within this item, those identified by
manufacturers of products within this
item are:
Test Methods
• Boeing #D6–7127, Cleaning
Interiors of Commercial Transport
Aircraft;
• ASTM D1308, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Effect of Household
Chemicals on Clear and Pigmented
Organic Finishes’’;
• Federal Test Method Standard
#536A, Soap and Soap Products
(Including Synthetic Detergents)
sampling and testing; and
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
EP23OC08.004
63314
63315
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
• South Coast Air Quality
Management District, certification as a
‘‘Clean Air Solvent.’’
Performance Standards
• Green Seal #8 (GS–8), Green Seal
Environmental Standard for Household
Cleaners; and
• Boeing #D6–7127, Cleaning
Interiors of Commercial Transport
Aircraft. Product Certifications and
Other Measures
• United States Navy Navsea #6840—
Surface ship (non-submarine)
authorized chemical cleaning products
and dispensing systems; and
• Green Seal #8 (GS–8), Green Seal
Environmental Standard for Household
Cleaners.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government using
the procedure described in the section
on ‘‘Chain and Cable Lubricants.’’ These
attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely
perform cleaning and maintenance
activities, or procure cleaning and
maintenance services, that use these
materials. Thus, they have a need for
general purpose household cleaners and
for services that require the use of
household cleaners. Designation of
‘‘general purpose household cleaners’’
will promote the use of biobased
products, furthering the objectives of
this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life-cycle
costs of biobased general purpose
household cleaners was performed for
two of the products using the BEES
analytical tool. The impact values for
these two general purpose household
cleaners are presented in Table 6a. The
environmental performance scores are
presented in Table 6b and in Figure 6.
TABLE 6A—IMPACT VALUES FOR GENERAL PURPOSE HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS
Environmental
impact area
Units
Acidification ......................................
Criteria Air Pollutants .......................
Ecological Toxicity ...........................
Eutrophication ..................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion .......................
Global Warming ...............................
Habitat Alteration .............................
Human Health ..................................
Indoor Air .........................................
Ozone Depletion ..............................
Smog ................................................
Water Intake ....................................
millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents .....................................................
micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years .........................................................
grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid ...............................................
grams of nitrogen equivalent .....................................................................
megajoules of surplus energy ...................................................................
grams of carbon dioxide equivalents ........................................................
threatened and endangered species count ..............................................
grams of toluene equivalent ......................................................................
grams of total volatile organic compounds ...............................................
grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents ............................................
grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents .........................................................
liters of water .............................................................................................
Sample A
Sample B
4,080
1.03
351
27.8
175
13,600
0
109,000
0
1.95E–04
69.3
389
Functional Unit .........................................................................................................................................................
1,510
0.657
8.76
3.24
38.8
3,000
0
30,600
0
2.28E–06
23.6
20.9
5 gallons.
TABLE 6B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR GENERAL PURPOSE HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS
Environmental impact area
Sample A
Sample B
Total Environmental Performance Score 1 ..........................................................................................................
0.1005
0.0127
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%) ........................................................................................................................................
0.0000
0.0003
0.0473
0.0072
0.0247
0.0085
0.0000
0.0076
0.0000
0.0000
0.0027
0.0022
0.0000
0.0002
0.0012
0.0008
0.0055
0.0019
0.0000
0.0021
0.0000
0.0000
0.0009
0.0001
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..................................................................................................
65.63
27.50
First Cost ......................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) .......................................................................................................................................
65.63
(3)
27.50
( 3)
Functional Unit .....................................................................................................................................................
5 gallons.
1 Numbers
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
2 Costs are per functional unit.
3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
As seen in Table 6b, the total
environmental performance scores are
0.0127 and 0.1005 points per five
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
gallons of product. The life-cycle costs
of the submitted household cleaners are
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$27.50 and $65.63 (present value
dollars) per five gallons of product.
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
7. Industrial Cleaners
Industrial cleaners are products used
to remove contaminants, such as
adhesives, inks, paint, dirt, soil, and
grease, from parts, products, tools,
machinery, equipment, vessels, floors,
walls, and other production-related
work areas. Cleaning operations are
performed for a variety of reasons, such
as safety and operability, and to avoid
contamination of the products being
manufactured or repaired at the facility.
The cleaning products within this item
are usually solvents, but may take other
forms. They may be used in either
straight solution or diluted with water
in pressure washers, or in hand wiping
applications in industrial or
manufacturing settings, such as inside
vessels.
Cleaners within this item are used in
industrial settings in which production
processes take place. This distinguishes
these types of cleaners from
institutional cleaners, which are used in
settings where production processes do
not take place.
Procuring agencies should note that,
as discussed in Section II of this
preamble, not all biobased cleaning
products are ‘‘environmentally
preferable’’ to non-biobased products.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
Unless cleaning products have been
formulated to contain no (or reduced
levels of) metals and toxic and
hazardous constituents, they can be
harmful to aquatic life, the environment,
and/or workers. When purchasing
environmentally preferable cleaning
products, Federal agencies should
compare the ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts
of the manufacture, use, and disposal of
both biobased and non-biobased
products in order to determine which
product is environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 59 different
manufacturers producing 122 individual
biobased industrial cleaner and/or
solvent products. The 59 manufacturers
do not necessarily include all
manufacturers of biobased industrial
cleaners, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially.
In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified test methods,
performance standards, and other
measures of performance used in
evaluating products within this item.
While there may be additional test
methods, as well as performance
standards, product certifications, and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
other measures of performance
applicable to products within this item,
those identified by manufacturers of
products within this item are:
Test Methods
• ASTM D445, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Kinematic Viscosity of
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and
the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity);’’
• ASTM D92, ‘‘Standard Test Method
for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland
Open Cup Tester;’’
• ASTM D1364, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Water in Volatile Solvents
(Karl Fischer Reagent Titration
Method);’’ and
• Environmental Protection Agency
Method #24—Determination of Volatile
Matter Content, Water Content, Density,
Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of
Surface Coating.
Performance Standards
• ASTM D446, ‘‘Standard
Specifications and Operating
Instructions for Glass Capillary
Kinematic Viscometers;’’
• ASTM D13, ‘‘Standard
Specification for Spirits of Turpentine;’’
• ASTM D1836, ‘‘Standard
Specification for Commercial Hexanes;’’
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
EP23OC08.005
63316
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
• ASTM D235, ‘‘Standard
Specification for Mineral Spirits
(Petroleum Spirits) (Hydrocarbon Dry
Cleaning Spirits);’’
• ASTM D3278, ‘‘Standard
Specification for 2-Ethoxyethyl Acetate
(99% Grade);’’
• Green Seal #GS–37, Green Seal
Environmental Standard for GeneralPurpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet
Cleaners Used for Industrial and
Institutional Purposes; and
• Boeing #BAC 5750, Solvent
Cleaning.
Product Certifications and Other
Measures
• Section 612 of EPA’s Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP);
• Green Seal #GS–37, Green Seal
Environmental Standard for GeneralPurpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet
Cleaners Used for Industrial and
Institutional Purposes; and
• EPA’s National Contingency Plan.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government using
the procedure described in the section
on ‘‘Chain and Cable Lubricants.’’ These
attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely
63317
use, or procure contract services, such
as cleaning and maintenance services,
that use industrial cleaners. Thus, there
is a need for industrial cleaners.
Designation of ‘‘industrial cleaners’’ will
promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this
program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life-cycle
costs of biobased industrial cleaners was
performed for three of the products
using the BEES analytical tool. The
impact values for these three products
are presented in Table 7a. The
environmental performance scores are
presented in Table 7b and in Figure 7.
TABLE 7A—IMPACT VALUES FOR INDUSTRIAL CLEANERS
Environmental impact area
Units
Sample A
Acidification .............................
Criteria Air Pollutants ..............
Ecological Toxicity ..................
Eutrophication .........................
Fossil Fuel Depletion ..............
Global Warming ......................
Habitat Alteration ....................
Human Health .........................
Indoor Air ................................
Ozone Depletion .....................
Smog .......................................
Water Intake ...........................
millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents ..................................
micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years ......................................
grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid ............................
grams of nitrogen equivalent ..................................................
megajoules of surplus energy ................................................
grams of carbon dioxide equivalents .....................................
threatened and endangered species count ...........................
grams of toluene equivalent ...................................................
grams of total volatile organic compounds ............................
grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents .........................
grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents ......................................
liters of water ..........................................................................
Sample B
433
0.134
79.5
0.971
16.7
953
0
4,940
0
1.66E–08
15.5
48.7
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................
11,100
3.56
234
58.7
470
32,600
0
291,000
0
2.21E–04
139
623
Sample C
34,000
16.2
76.5
45.2
133
158,000
0
103,000
0
5.19E–06
198
287
5 gallons of product.
TABLE 7B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR INDUSTRIAL CLEANERS
Environmental impact area
Sample A
Sample B
Sample C
Total Environmental Performance Score 1 ..................................................................................
0.0152
0.1641
0.1615
Acidification (5%) ..................................................................................................................
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%) ................................................................................................................
0.0000
0.0000
0.0107
0.0003
0.0024
0.0006
0.0000
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0006
0.0003
0.0000
0.0011
0.0316
0.0153
0.0665
0.0204
0.0000
0.0202
0.0000
0.0000
0.0055
0.0035
0.0000
0.0051
0.0103
0.0118
0.0189
0.0989
0.0000
0.0071
0.0000
0.0000
0.0078
0.0016
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 ...........................................................................
8.85
82.00
84.95
First Cost ..............................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) ...............................................................................................................
8.85
(3)
82.00
(3 )
84.95
(3 )
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Functional Unit .............................................................................................................................
Five gallons of product.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
As seen in Table 7b, the total
environmental performance scores range
from 0.0152 to 0.1641 per five gallons of
product. The life-cycle costs of the
submitted industrial cleaners range from
$8.85 to $84.95 (present value dollars)
per five gallons of product.
8. Multipurpose Cleaners
Multipurpose cleaners are used to
clean dirt, grease, and grime from a
variety of items and are used in both
industrial and domestic settings.
Multipurpose cleaners are intended for
broader applications than those cleaners
designated as general purpose
household cleaners, task-specific
cleaners (e.g., bathroom and spa
cleaners), and industrial cleaners. In
today’s proposed rule, the definition of
multipurpose cleaners excludes
products that are formulated for use as
disinfectants.
Procuring agencies should note that,
as discussed in Section II of this
preamble, not all biobased cleaning
products are ‘‘environmentally
preferable’’ to non-biobased products.
Unless cleaning products have been
formulated to contain no (or reduced
levels of) metals and toxic and
hazardous constituents, they can be
harmful to aquatic life, the environment,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
and/or workers. When purchasing
environmentally preferable cleaning
products, Federal agencies should
compare the ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts
of the manufacture, use, and disposal of
both biobased and non-biobased
products in order to determine which
product is environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 39 different
manufacturers producing 61 individual
biobased multipurpose cleaner
products. These 39 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all
manufacturers of biobased multipurpose
cleaners, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
products are being used commercially.
In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified several test
methods and other measures of
performance and one performance
standard used in evaluating products
within this item. While there may be
additional test methods, as well as
performance standards, product
certifications, and other measures of
performance applicable to products
within this item, those identified by
manufacturers of products within this
item are:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Test Methods
• ASTM D1298, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Density, Relative Density
(Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of
Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum
Products by Hydrometer Method’’;
• ASTM D130, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Corrosiveness to Copper
from Petroleum Products by Copper
Strip Test’’;
• ASTM D2500, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Cloud Point of Petroleum
Products’’;
• ASTM D86, ‘‘Standard Test Method
for Distillation of Petroleum Products at
Atmospheric Pressure’’;
• Environmental Protection Agency
Method #601, Purgeable Halocarbons;
• Environmental Protection Agency
Method #602, Purgeable Aromatics;
• Environmental Protection Agency
Method #608, Organochlorine Pesticides
and PCBs;
• Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development #OECD
301B—CO2 Evolution Test for
Biodegradation;
• Society of Automotive Engineers
#APR 1755B—Effect of Cleaning Agents
on Aircraft Engine Materials, Stock Loss
Test Method;
• Green Seal #GS–37, Green Seal
Environmental Standard for General-
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
EP23OC08.006
63318
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Purpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet
Cleaners Used for Industrial and
Institutional Purposes; and
• Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms (EPA #600/4–90–027F).
Performance Standards
• Green Seal #GS–34—Standard
Establishing Environmental
Requirements for Cleaning/Degreasing
Agents.
Product Certifications and Other
Measures
• Choice Eco Logo (Canada);
• Acute Dermal Toxicity; and
• Acute Oral Toxicity.
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government using
the procedure described in the section
on ‘‘Chain and Cable Lubricants.’’ These
attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely
use, or procure contract services that
use, multipurpose cleaners in a variety
of cleaning and maintenance activities.
63319
Thus, there is a need for multipurpose
cleaners. Designation of ‘‘multipurpose
cleaners’’ will promote the use of
biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life-cycle
costs of biobased multipurpose cleaners
was performed for one of the products
using the BEES analytical tool. The
impact values for this multipurpose
cleaner are presented in Table 8a. The
environmental performance scores are
presented in Table 8b and in Figure 8.
TABLE 8A—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR MULTIPURPOSE CLEANERS—IMPACT VALUES
Environmental impact area
Units
Sample A
Acidification ............................................... millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents ........................................................................
Criteria Air Pollutants ................................ micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years ............................................................................
Ecological Toxicity .................................... grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid ..................................................................
Eutrophication ........................................... grams of nitrogen equivalent .......................................................................................
Fossil Fuel Depletion ................................ megajoules of surplus energy ......................................................................................
Global Warming ........................................ grams of carbon dioxide equivalents ...........................................................................
Habitat Alteration ...................................... threatened and endangered species count .................................................................
Human Health ........................................... grams of toluene equivalent .........................................................................................
Indoor Air .................................................. grams of total volatile organic compounds ..................................................................
Ozone Depletion ....................................... grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents ..............................................................
Smog ......................................................... grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents ............................................................................
Water Intake ............................................. liters of water ................................................................................................................
Functional Unit .....................................................................................................................................................................................
1 1,000
2,910
1.19
158
17.5
5.12
4,680
0
47,100
0
4.53E–06
65.1
4,000
(1)
gallons of diluted and ready to use multipurpose cleaner.
TABLE 8B—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR MULTIPURPOSE CLEANERS
Environmental impact area
Sample A
BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ...........................................................................................................................
0.0649
Acidification (5%) ........................................................................................................................................................................
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%) ......................................................................................................................................................................
0.0000
0.0004
0.0213
0.0046
0.0072
0.0029
0.0000
0.0033
0.0000
0.0000
0.0026
0.0226
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 ................................................................................................................................
5,950.00
First Cost ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) .....................................................................................................................................................................
5,950.00
(3)
Functional Unit ...................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
4 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use multipurpose cleaner.
2 Costs
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
(4)
3 For
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
As seen in Table 8b, the total
environmental performance score and
the life-cycle cost for the submitted
multipurpose cleaner are, respectively,
0.0649 points per 1,000 gallons of
diluted and ready to use product and
$5,950.00 per 1,000 gallons of diluted
and ready to use product.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
9. Parts Wash Solutions
Parts wash solutions are products
used in cleaning and machining parts to
remove dirt and grease buildup on used
parts. The products are intended to be
used in manual or automatic cleaning
systems including, but not limited to,
soak vats and tanks, ultrasonic cleaners,
and cabinet washers.
USDA identified 16 different
manufacturers producing 22 individual
biobased parts wash solution products.
These 16 manufacturers do not
necessarily include all manufacturers of
biobased parts wash solutions, merely
those identified during USDA
information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that these
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
products are being used commercially.
In addition, manufacturers and
stakeholders identified four test
methods used in evaluating products
within this item. While there may be
additional test methods, as well as
performance standards, product
certifications, and other measures of
performance applicable to products
within this item, those identified by
manufacturers of products within this
item are:
Test Methods
• ASTM D445, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Kinematic Viscosity of
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and
the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity)’’;
• ASTM D446, ‘‘Standard
Specifications and Operating
Instructions for Glass Capillary
Kinematic Viscometers’’;
• ASTM D877, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Dielectric Breakdown
Voltage of Insulating Liquids Using Disk
Electrodes’’; and
• ASTM D92, ‘‘Standard Test Method
for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland
Open Cup Tester’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
USDA attempted to gather data on the
potential market for biobased products
within the Federal government using
the procedure described in the section
on ‘‘Chain and Cable Lubricants.’’ These
attempts were largely unsuccessful.
USDA is aware of biobased parts wash
solutions being used by at least one U.S.
Air Force base that overhauls aircraft
parts. However, Federal agencies or
their services contractors routinely
perform, and procure services that
perform, the types of cleaning and
maintenance activities that utilize parts
wash solutions. Thus, there is a need for
parts wash solutions. Designation of
‘‘parts wash solutions’’ will promote the
use of biobased products, furthering the
objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and
human health benefits and the life-cycle
costs of biobased parts wash solutions
was performed for two of the products
using the BEES analytical tool. The
impact values for these two parts wash
solutions are presented in Table 9a. The
environmental performance scores are
presented in Table 9b and in Figure 9.
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
EP23OC08.007
63320
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
63321
TABLE 9A—IMPACT VALUES FOR PARTS WASH SOLUTIONS
Environmental impact area
Units
Sample A
Acidification .................................
Criteria Air Pollutants ..................
Ecological Toxicity ......................
Eutrophication .............................
Fossil Fuel Depletion ..................
Global Warming ..........................
Habitat Alteration ........................
Human Health .............................
Indoor Air ....................................
Ozone Depletion .........................
Smog ..........................................
Water Intake ...............................
millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents ..........................................
micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years ...............................................
grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid ....................................
grams of nitrogen equivalent ..........................................................
megajoules of surplus energy ........................................................
grams of carbon dioxide equivalents .............................................
threatened and endangered species count ....................................
grams of toluene equivalent ...........................................................
grams of total volatile organic compounds ....................................
grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents .................................
grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents ..............................................
liters of water ..................................................................................
Sample B
2,870
1.12
71.4
8.83
130
7,560
0
75,400
0
1.10E–05
30.3
92.6
Functional Unit .........................................................................................................................................
1,960
0.594
40.1
10.7
76.4
5,100
0
55,200
0
2.03E–06
21.5
117
1 gallon
TABLE 9B—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR PARTS WASH SOLUTIONS—ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES
Environmental impact area
Sample A
Sample B
Total Environmental Performance Score 1 ..........................................................................................................
0.0421
0.0278
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%) ........................................................................................................................................
0.0000
0.0003
0.0096
0.0023
0.0183
0.0047
0.0000
0.0052
0.0000
0.0000
0.0012
0.0005
0.0000
0.0002
0.005
0.0028
0.0108
0.0032
0.0000
0.0038
0.0000
0.0000
0.0009
0.0007
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 ..................................................................................................
10.43
16.99
First Cost ......................................................................................................................................................
Future Cost (3.9%) .......................................................................................................................................
10.43
(3)
16.99
( 3)
Functional Unit .....................................................................................................................................................
1 Numbers
gallon of parts wash solution
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
2 Costs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
As seen in Table 9b, the total
environmental performance scores are
0.0278 and 0.0421 points per gallon of
product. The life-cycle costs of the
submitted parts wash solutions are
$10.43 and $16.99 (present value
dollars) per gallon of product.
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
USDA has determined that setting a
minimum biobased content for
designated items is appropriate.
Establishing a minimum biobased
content will encourage competition
among manufacturers to develop
products with higher biobased contents
and will prevent products with de
minimus biobased content from being
purchased as a means of satisfying the
requirements of section 9002. USDA
believes that it is in the best interest of
the preferred procurement program for
minimum biobased contents to be set at
levels that will realistically allow
products to possess the necessary
performance attributes and allow them
to compete with non-biobased products
in performance and economics. Setting
the minimum biobased content for an
item at a level met by several of the
tested products will provide more
products from which procurement
officials may choose, will encourage the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
most widespread usage of biobased
products by procuring agencies, and is
expected to accomplish the objectives of
section 9002.
As discussed in Section IV.A of this
preamble, USDA relied entirely on
manufacturers’ voluntary submission of
samples to support the proposed
designation of these items. The data
presented in the following paragraphs
are the test results from all of the
product samples that were submitted for
analysis.
As a result of public comments
received on the first designated items
rulemaking proposal, USDA decided to
account for the slight imprecision in the
analytical method used to determine
biobased content of products when
establishing the minimum biobased
content. Thus, rather than establishing
the minimum biobased content for an
item at the tested biobased content of
the product selected as the basis for the
minimum value, USDA is establishing
the minimum biobased content at a
level three (3) percentage points less
than the tested value. USDA believes
that this adjustment is appropriate to
account for the expected variations in
analytical results.
USDA encourages procuring agencies
to seek products with the highest
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
biobased content that is practicable in
all of the proposed designated items. To
assist the procuring agencies in
determining which products have the
highest biobased content, USDA will
update the information in the biobased
products catalog to include the biobased
content of each product. Those products
within each designated item that have
the highest biobased content will be
listed first and others will be listed in
descending order. USDA is specifically
requesting comments on the proposed
minimum biobased contents of
designated items and also requests
additional data that can be used to reevaluate the appropriateness of the
proposed minimum biobased contents.
As the market for biobased products
develops and USDA obtains additional
biobased content data, it will re-evaluate
the established minimum biobased
contents of designated items and
consider raising them whenever
justified.
The following paragraphs summarize
the information that USDA used to
propose minimum biobased contents
within each proposed designated item.
1. Chain and Cable Lubricants
Nine of the 37 biobased chain and
cable lubricants identified have been
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
EP23OC08.008
63322
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
tested for biobased content using ASTM
D6866.2 The biobased contents of these
nine biobased chain and cable
lubricants ranged from 80 percent to 100
percent, as follows: 80, 81, 86, 89, 96,
99, 100, 100, and 100.
The biobased contents for the tested
products fall within a fairly narrow
range with no significant breaks or gaps
in the data. Therefore, USDA is
proposing to set the minimum biobased
content for this item at 77 percent,
based on the product with a tested
biobased content of 80 percent. The
tested 80 percent value is adjusted to 77
percent to account for possible
variability in the results of ASTM
D6866, as discussed earlier.
2. Corrosion Preventatives
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Ten of the 97 available biobased
corrosion preventatives have been tested
for biobased content using ASTM
D6866. The biobased contents of these
ten biobased corrosion preventatives
ranged from 26 percent to 94 percent as
follows: 26, 26, 56, 59, 61, 74, 85, 91,
92, and 94.
As seen, the tested biobased contents
cover a wide range, from 26 percent to
94 percent, with a significant gap in the
range between the 26 and 56 percent
products and another between the 61
and 74 percent products. USDA
reviewed the product information for
the two products with 26 percent
biobased content to determine if there
was any justification for creating a
subcategory within the item or for
considering these products when setting
the proposed minimum biobased
content. USDA did not identify any
performance or applicability features of
these products that justified creating a
subcategory or setting the minimum
biobased content at a level that would
include them. USDA next evaluated the
available information for the group of
products with biobased contents
between 56 and 61 percent. USDA
found that the manufacturer of the
product with a biobased content of 61
percent indicates that their product
meets the ASTM D665 Turbine Oil Rust
Test. The manufacturers of the products
with higher biobased contents have not
indicated that their products meet this
performance level. USDA does not have
sufficient information to otherwise
distinguish among the products in the
2 ASTM D6866, ‘‘Standard Test Methods for
Determining the Biobased Content of Natural Range
Materials Using Radiocarbon and Isotope Ratio
Mass Spectrometry Analysis,’’ is used to distinguish
between carbon from fossil resources (non-biobased
carbon) and carbon from renewable sources
(biobased carbon). The biobased content is
expressed as the percentage of total carbon that is
biobased carbon.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
group of products whose biobased
contents range from 56 to 61 percent.
For these reasons, USDA is proposing to
set the minimum biobased content for
this item at 53 percent, based on the
product with the lowest biobased
content in the group of products with
tested biobased contents of 56 to 61
percent.
3. Food Cleaners
Five of the 15 biobased food cleaners
identified have been tested for biobased
content using ASTM D6866. The
biobased contents of these five biobased
food cleaners ranged from 56 percent to
98 percent as follows: 56, 61, 65, 76, and
98.
While this is a fairly wide range of
biobased contents between the lowest
biobased content and the highest
biobased content among the tested
products, the only significant gap in the
data is between the 76 and the 98
percent products. Because most of the
biobased contents are grouped towards
the lower end of the range, USDA
evaluated the available information for
these products to determine if there was
justification for creating separate
subcategories for these products and for
the one product with 98 percent
biobased content. USDA found that
there was not sufficient information on
performance or applicability of the
products to support the creation of
subcategories. Therefore, USDA is
proposing to set the minimum biobased
content for this item at 53 percent,
based on the product with the lowest
biobased content in the group of
products with tested biobased contents
ranging from 56 to 65 percent.
4. Forming Lubricants
Five of the 13 biobased forming
lubricants identified have been tested
for biobased content using ASTM
D6866. The biobased contents of these
five biobased forming lubricants ranged
from 38 percent to 99 percent as
follows: 38, 71, 85, 85, and 99.
Considering that there is a significant
gap in the data points between the 38
and 71 percent biobased products,
USDA evaluated the information
available on these products to determine
if there was justification for creating
subcategories. USDA found that there
was not sufficient information to create
subcategories or to include the 38
percent biobased product when setting
the minimum biobased content for the
item. USDA found that the product with
71 percent biobased content was
product claimed by its manufacturer to
be biodegradable, while the
manufacturers of the 85 and 99 percent
biobased products did not make such
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63323
claims for their products. Because
biodegradability is a desired feature,
USDA is proposing to set the minimum
biobased content for this item at 68
percent, based on the product with a
tested biobased content of 71 percent.
5. Gear Lubricants
Eight of the 24 biobased gear
lubricants identified have been tested
for biobased content using ASTM
D6866. The biobased contents of these
eight biobased gear lubricants ranged
from 4 percent to 100 percent as
follows: 4, 61, 69, 81, 87, 89, 97, and
100.
Because there is a significant gap in
biobased content between the products
with 4 and 61 percent biobased content,
USDA evaluated the 4 percent biobased
product to determine if it possessed
performance or applicability features
that the other products did not. USDA
found no performance or applicability
characteristics that set this product
apart from other products in this item.
Therefore, UDSA dropped this product
from consideration in setting the
minimum biobased content for this
item.
The tested biobased content of the
remaining six products, as shown above,
ranged from 61 percent to 100 percent.
USDA found that the manufacturers of
the products with 61 and 69 percent
biobased content have tested their
products against numerous performance
standards and that the remaining
manufacturers do not claim to have
done so. To ensure that products are
available within this item that meet a
range of performance standards, USDA
is proposing to set the minimum
biobased content for this item at 58
percent, based on the product with a
tested biobased content of 61 percent.
6. General Purpose Household Cleaners
Nine of the 24 biobased general
purpose household cleaners identified
have been tested for biobased content
using ASTM D6866. The biobased
contents of these nine biobased general
purpose household cleaners ranged
from 10 percent to 95 percent as
follows: 10, 42, 54, 61, 72, 81, 82, 91,
and 95.
The biobased content of the 10
percent product is substantially below
the next lowest tested product (42
percent) and USDA found no
performance or applicability
characteristics that set the 10 percent
product apart from other products in
this item. Therefore, UDSA dropped this
product from consideration in setting
the minimum biobased content for this
item.
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
63324
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
The tested biobased contents of the
remaining eight products, as shown
above, ranged from 42 percent to 95
percent. Because this is a wide range of
values, USDA considered the possibility
of creating subcategories within this
item. However, USDA does not have
sufficient data on the performance and
applicability of products within this
item to support the creation of
subcategories. USDA will continue to
request product performance data and,
if sufficient supporting data can be
obtained, will consider creating
subcategories within this item in the
final rule. Because of the lack of
supporting data for subcategorization
and because there are no significant
gaps in the biobased content of the eight
products being considered, USDA is
proposing to set the minimum biobased
content for general purpose household
cleaners at 39 percent, based on the
product with a tested biobased content
of 42 percent.
7. Industrial Cleaners
Thirty-two of the 121 biobased
industrial cleaners identified have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM
D6866. The tested biobased contents for
these 32 biobased industrial cleaners
ranged from 2 percent to 100 percent, as
follows: 2, 18, 18, 44, 49, 52, 61, 69, 73,
74, 77, 79, 80, 80, 82, 85, 91, 92, 92, 94,
95, 95, 96, 96, 97, 97, 98, and 100 (five
products).
Because there is a significant gap
between the 18 and the 44 percent
biobased content products, USDA
reviewed the information on the three
products with tested biobased contents
of 2 percent and 18 percent to determine
if subcategorization was justified. USDA
found no performance or applicability
characteristics that set these products
apart from other products in this item
and, thus, they were eliminated from
consideration for establishing the
minimum biobased content.
The tested biobased contents of the
remaining 26 products, as shown above,
ranged from 44 percent to 100 percent.
Because of the variability of the
substrates to be cleaned and of the
contaminants that are encountered on
those substrates, USDA considered
subcategorizing this item. However, at
the present time USDA does not have
sufficient data to segregate the various
products into subcategories based on
formulation or performance. As a result,
USDA is proposing to maintain
industrial cleaners as a single item.
Because there are no significant gaps in
the 26 biobased content data points
being considered, USDA proposes to set
the minimum biobased content for this
item at 41 percent, based on the product
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
with a tested biobased content of 44
percent. If sufficient data become
available after proposal, USDA will reevaluate the possibility of
subcategorizing this item.
8. Multipurpose Cleaners
Eighteen of the 62 biobased
multipurpose cleaners identified have
been tested for biobased content using
ASTM D6866. The biobased contents of
these 18 biobased multipurpose cleaners
ranged from 11 percent to 96 percent as
follows: 11, 15, 25, 28, 31, 37, 45, 49,
59, 65, 69, 72, 78, 79, 84, 88, 96, and 96.
As with the industrial cleaners item,
USDA considered subcategorizing this
item based on factors such as product
formulations, the variability of the
substrates to be cleaned, and the
contaminants that are encountered.
However, at the present time USDA
does not have sufficient data to
segregate the various products into
subcategories based on formulation or
performance. As a result, USDA is
proposing to maintain multipurpose
cleaners as a single item. Although there
are no large gaps in the range of
biobased content data points, USDA
considered the 10-point gap between the
49 and the 59 percent biobased content
products to be sufficient for creating two
groups of products; one with biobased
contents of 49 percent and lower and
one with biobased contents of 59
percent and higher. USDA evaluated the
product information available for each
product within the two product groups
and was unable to identify performance
or applicability features in the 49
percent and lower group that were not
available in the 59 percent and higher
group. Thus, USDA proposes to set the
minimum biobased content for this item
at 56 percent, based on the 59 percent
biobased product from the group of
products with the higher biobased
contents. If sufficient data become
available after proposal, USDA will reevaluate the possibility of
subcategorizing this item.
9. Parts Wash Solutions
Seven of the 22 biobased parts wash
solutions identified have been tested for
biobased content using ASTM D6866.
The biobased contents of these seven
biobased parts wash solutions ranged
from 12 percent to 96 percent as
follows: 12, 13, 68, 83, 89, 94, and 96.
Because there is a significant gap
between the 13 and the 68 percent
biobased content products, USDA
reviewed the information on the
products with tested biobased contents
of 12 percent and 13 percent to
determine if subcategorization was
justified. USDA found no performance
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or applicability characteristics that set
these products apart from other
products in this item and, thus, they
were eliminated from consideration for
establishing the minimum biobased
content.
Because the overall range of the five
remaining data points is fairly narrow,
and the available product information
does not support any subcategorization
of this item, USDA is proposing to set
the minimum biobased content for parts
wash solutions at 65 percent, based on
the product with a tested biobased
content of 68 percent.
D. Compliance Date for Procurement
Preference and Incorporation Into
Specifications
USDA intends for the final rule to
take effect thirty (30) days after
publication of the final rule. However,
as proposed, procuring agencies would
have a one-year transition period,
starting from the date of publication of
the final rule, before the procurement
preference for biobased products within
a designated item would take effect.
USDA is proposing a one-year period
before the procurement preferences
would take effect based on recognizing
that Federal agencies will need time to
incorporate the preferences into
procurement documents and to revise
existing standardized specifications.
Section 9002(a)(3), as amended by the
FCEA of 2008, and section 2902(c) of 7
CFR part 2902 explicitly acknowledge
the latter need for Federal agencies to
have sufficient time to revise the
affected specifications to give preference
to biobased products when purchasing
the designated items. Procuring agencies
will need time to evaluate the economic
and technological feasibility of the
available biobased products for their
agency-specific uses and for compliance
with agency-specific requirements,
including manufacturers’ warranties for
machinery in which the biobased
products would be used.
By the time these items are
promulgated for designation, Federal
agencies will have had a minimum of 18
months (from the date of this Federal
Register notice), and much longer
considering when the Guidelines were
first proposed and these requirements
were first laid out, to implement these
requirements.
For these reasons, USDA proposes
that the mandatory preference for
biobased products under the designated
items take effect one year after
promulgation of the final rule. The oneyear period provides these agencies
with ample time to evaluate the
economic and technological feasibility
of biobased products for a specific use
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
and to revise the specifications
accordingly. However, some agencies
may be able to complete these processes
more expeditiously, and not all uses
will require extensive analysis or
revision of existing specifications.
Although it is allowing up to one year,
USDA encourages procuring agencies to
implement the procurement preferences
as early as practicable for procurement
actions involving any of the designated
items.
V. Where Can Agencies Get More
Information on These USDA-Designated
Items?
Information used to develop this
proposed rule can be found in the
technical support document, which can
be accessed on the BioPreferred Web
site, which is located at: https://
www.biopreferred.gov. At the
BioPreferred Web site, click on the
Proposed and Final Regulations link on
the left side of the page. At the next
screen, click on the Supporting
Documentation link under Round 5
Designated Items under the Proposed
Regulations section.
Further, once the item designations in
today’s proposal become final,
manufacturers and vendors voluntarily
may make available information on
specific products, including product
and contact information, for posting by
USDA on the BioPreferred Web site.
USDA will periodically audit the
information displayed on the
BioPreferred Web site and, where
questions arise, contact the
manufacturer or vendor to verify,
correct, or remove incorrect or out-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 BioPreferred Web
site, agencies will also be able to obtain
the voluntarily posted information on
each product concerning: Relative price;
life-cycle costs; hot links directly to a
manufacturer’s or vendor’s Web site (if
available); performance standards
(industry, government, military, ASTM/
ISO) that the product has been tested
against; and environmental and public
health information from the BEES
analysis or the alternative analysis
embedded in ASTM Standard D7075,
‘‘Standard Practice for Evaluating and
Reporting Environmental Performance
of Biobased Products.’’
USDA has linked the BioPreferred
Web site to DoD’s list of specifications
and standards, which can be used as
guidance when procuring products. To
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
63325
access this list, go to the BioPreferred
Web site and click on the ‘‘Selling to
Federal Government’’ tab and look for
the DoD Specifications link.
Consideration was also given to the fact
that agencies may choose not to procure
designated items due to unreasonable
costs.
VI. Regulatory Information
1. Summary of Impacts
Today’s proposed rule is expected to
have both positive and negative impacts
on individual businesses, including
small businesses. USDA anticipates that
the biobased preferred procurement
program will provide additional
opportunities for businesses and
manufacturers to begin supplying
products under the proposed designated
biobased items to Federal agencies and
their contractors. However, other
businesses and manufacturers that
supply only non-qualifying products
and do not offer biobased alternatives
may experience a decrease in demand
from Federal agencies and their
contractors. USDA is unable to
determine the number of businesses,
including small businesses, which may
be adversely affected by today’s
proposed rule. The proposed rule,
however, will not affect existing
purchase orders, nor will it preclude
businesses from modifying their product
lines to meet new requirements for
designated biobased products. Because
the extent to which procuring agencies
will find the performance and costs of
biobased products acceptable is
unknown, it is impossible to quantify
the actual economic effect of the rule.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866 requires
agencies to determine whether a
regulatory action is ‘‘significant.’’ The
Order defines a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may: ‘‘(1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect, in a material
way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) Create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.’’
Today’s proposed rule has been
determined significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore,
has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. We are not
able to quantify the annual economic
effect associated with today’s proposed
rule. As discussed earlier in this
preamble, USDA made extensive efforts
to obtain information on the Federal
agencies’ usage within today’s
designated items, including their
subcategories. These efforts were largely
unsuccessful. Therefore, attempts to
quantify the economic impact of today’s
proposed rule would require estimation
of the anticipated market penetration of
biobased products based upon many
assumptions. In addition, because
agencies have the option of not
purchasing designated items if costs are
‘‘unreasonable,’’ the product is not
readily available, or the product does
not demonstrate necessary performance
characteristics, certain assumptions may
not be valid. While facing these
quantitative challenges, USDA relied
upon a qualitative assessment to
determine the impacts of today’s
proposed rule. This assessment was
based primarily on the offsetting nature
of the program (an increase in biobased
products purchased with a
corresponding decrease in fossil energybased products (including petroleum,
coal and natural gas) purchased).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Benefits of the Proposed Rule
The designation of these items
provides the benefits outlined in the
objectives of section 9002: To increase
domestic demand for many agricultural
commodities that can serve as
feedstocks for production of biobased
products; to spur development of the
industrial base through value-added
agricultural processing and
manufacturing in rural communities; to
enhance the Nation’s energy security by
substituting biobased products for
products derived from imported oil and
natural gas; and to substitute products
with a possibly more benign or
beneficial environmental impact, as
compared to the use of fossil energybased products. On a national and
regional level, today’s proposed rule can
result in expanding and strengthening
markets for biobased materials used in
these items.
3. Costs of the Proposed Rule
Like the benefits, the costs of today’s
proposed rule have not been quantified.
Two types of costs are involved: Costs
to producers of products that will
compete with the preferred products
and costs to Federal agencies to provide
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
63326
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
procurement preference for the
preferred products. Producers of
competing products may face a decrease
in demand for their products to the
extent Federal agencies refrain from
purchasing their products. However, it
is not known to what extent this may
occur. Procurement costs for Federal
agencies may rise as they evaluate the
availability and relative cost of preferred
products before making a purchase.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–602, generally
requires an agency to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
USDA evaluated the potential impacts
of its proposed designation of these
items to determine whether its actions
would have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Because the preferred procurement
program established under section 9002,
as amended by the FCEA of 2008,
applies only to Federal agencies and
their contractors, small governmental
(city, county, etc.) agencies are not
affected. Thus, the proposal, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on small governmental
jurisdictions. USDA anticipates that this
program will affect entities, both large
and small, that manufacture or sell
biobased products. For example, the
designation of items for preferred
procurement will provide additional
opportunities for businesses to
manufacture and sell biobased products
to Federal agencies and their
contractors. Similar opportunities will
be provided for entities that supply
biobased materials to manufacturers.
Conversely, the biobased procurement
program may decrease opportunities for
businesses that manufacture or sell 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
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
containing biobased materials. Thus, the
economic impacts of today’s proposed
rule are not expected to be significant.
The intent of section 9002 is largely
to stimulate the production of new
biobased products and to energize
emerging markets for those products.
Because the program is still in its
infancy, however, it is unknown how
many businesses will ultimately be
affected. While USDA has no data on
the number of small businesses that may
choose to develop and market products
within the items proposed for
designation by today’s proposed rule,
the number is expected to be small.
Because biobased products represent an
emerging market, only a small
percentage of all manufacturers, large or
small, are expected to develop and
market biobased products. Thus, the
number of small businesses affected by
today’s proposed rule is not expected to
be substantial.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, USDA certifies that this
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Today’s
proposed rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
While not a factor relevant to
determining whether the proposed rule
will have a significant impact for RFA
purposes, USDA has concluded that the
effect of today’s proposed rule would be
to provide positive opportunities to
businesses engaged in the manufacture
of these biobased products. Purchase
and use of these biobased products by
procuring agencies may increase
demand for these products and result in
private sector development of new
technologies, creating business and
employment opportunities that enhance
local, regional, and national economies.
Technological innovation associated
with the use of biobased materials can
translate into economic growth and
increased industry competitiveness
worldwide, thereby, creating
opportunities for small entities.
C. Executive Order 12630:
Governmental Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights
This proposed rule has been reviewed
in accordance with Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights, and does not
contain policies that would have
implications for these rights.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed
in accordance with Executive Order
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This
proposed rule does not preempt State or
local laws, is not intended to have
retroactive effect, and does not involve
administrative appeals.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment. Provisions of this proposed
rule will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or their political
subdivisions or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various government levels.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This proposed rule contains no
Federal mandates under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, for State, local, and
tribal governments, or the private sector.
Therefore, a statement under section
202 of UMRA is not required.
G. Executive Order 12372:
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs
For the reasons set forth in the Final
Rule Related Notice for 7 CFR part 3015,
subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983),
this program is excluded from the scope
of Executive Order 12372, which
requires intergovernmental consultation
with State and local officials. This
program does not directly affect State
and local governments.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Today’s proposed rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect ‘‘one or
more Indian tribes, * * * the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or * * *
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ Thus,
no further action is required under
Executive Order 13175.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
through 3520), the information
collection under this proposed rule is
currently approved under OMB control
number 0503–0011.
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
J. Government Paperwork Elimination
Act Compliance
USDA is committed to compliance
with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3504
note), which requires Government
agencies in general to provide the public
the option of submitting information or
transacting business electronically to
the maximum extent possible. USDA is
implementing an electronic information
system for posting information
voluntarily submitted by manufacturers
or vendors on the products they intend
to offer for preferred procurement under
each designated item. For information
pertinent to GPEA compliance related to
this rule, please contact Shana Love at
(202) 205–4008.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 2902
Biobased products, Procurement.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of Agriculture
proposes to amend 7 CFR chapter XXIX
as follows:
CHAPTER XXIX—OFFICE OF ENERGY
POLICY AND NEW USES
PART 2902—GUIDELINES FOR
DESIGNATING BIOBASED PRODUCTS
FOR FEDERAL PROCUREMENT
1. The authority citation for part 2902
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8102.
Subpart B
2. Add §§ 2902.43 through 2902.51 to
subpart B to read as follows:
Sec.
2902.43 Chain and cable lubricants.
2902.44 Corrosion preventatives.
2902.45 Food cleaners.
2902.46 Foaming lubricants.
2902.47 Gear lubricants.
2902.48 General purpose household
cleaners.
2902.49 Industrial cleaners.
2902.50 Multipurpose cleaners.
2902.51 Parts wash solutions.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
§ 2902.43
Chain and cable lubricants.
(a) Definition. Products designed to
provide lubrication in such applications
as bar and roller chains, sprockets, and
wire ropes and cables. Products may
also prevent rust and corrosion in these
applications.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
preferred procurement product must
have a minimum biobased content of at
least 77 percent, which shall be based
on the amount of qualifying biobased
carbon in the product as a percent of the
weight (mass) of the total organic carbon
in the finished product.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
(c) Preference compliance date. No
later than [date one year after the date
of publication of the final rule],
procuring agencies, in accordance with
this part, will give a procurement
preference for qualifying biobased chain
and cable lubricants. By that date,
Federal agencies that have the
responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured
shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased chain and cable lubricants.
§ 2902.44
Corrosion preventatives.
(a) Definition. Products designed to
prevent the deterioration (corrosion) of
metals.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
preferred procurement product must
have a minimum biobased content of at
least 53 percent, which shall be based
on the amount of qualifying biobased
carbon in the product as a percent of the
weight (mass) of the total organic carbon
in the finished product.
(c) Preference compliance date. No
later than [date one year after the date
of publication of the final rule],
procuring agencies, in accordance with
this part, will give a procurement
preference for qualifying biobased
corrosion preventatives. By that date,
Federal agencies that have the
responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured
shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased corrosion preventatives.
§ 2902.45
Food cleaners.
(a) Definition. Anti-microbial
products designed to clean the outer
layer of various food products, such as
fruit, vegetables, and meats.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
preferred procurement product must
have a minimum biobased content of at
least 53 percent, which shall be based
on the amount of qualifying biobased
carbon in the product as a percent of the
weight (mass) of the total organic carbon
in the finished product.
(c) Preference compliance date. No
later than [date one year after the date
of publication of the final rule],
procuring agencies, in accordance with
this part, will give a procurement
preference for qualifying biobased food
cleaners. By that date, Federal agencies
that have the responsibility for drafting
or reviewing specifications for items to
be procured shall ensure that the
relevant specifications require the use of
biobased food cleaners.
§ 2902.46
Forming lubricants.
(a) Definition. Products designed to
provide lubrication during
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63327
metalworking applications that are
performed under extreme pressure.
Such metalworking applications include
tube bending, stretch forming, press
braking, and swaging.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
preferred procurement product must
have a minimum biobased content of at
least 68 percent, which shall be based
on the amount of qualifying biobased
carbon in the product as a percent of the
weight (mass) of the total organic carbon
in the finished product.
(c) Preference compliance date. No
later than [date one year after the date
of publication of the final rule],
procuring agencies, in accordance with
this part, will give a procurement
preference for qualifying biobased
forming lubricants. By that date, Federal
agencies that have the responsibility for
drafting or reviewing specifications for
items to be procured shall ensure that
the relevant specifications require the
use of biobased forming lubricants.
§ 2902.47
Gear lubricants.
(a) Definition. Products, such as
greases or oils, that are designed to
reduce friction when applied to a
toothed machine part (such as a wheel
or cylinder) that meshes with another
toothed part to transmit motion or to
change speed or direction.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
preferred procurement product must
have a minimum biobased content of at
least 58 percent, which shall be based
on the amount of qualifying biobased
carbon in the product as a percent of the
weight (mass) of the total organic carbon
in the finished product.
(c) Preference compliance date. No
later than [date one year after the date
of publication of the final rule],
procuring agencies, in accordance with
this part, will give a procurement
preference for qualifying biobased gear
lubricants. By that date, Federal
agencies that have the responsibility for
drafting or reviewing specifications for
items to be procured shall ensure that
the relevant specifications require the
use of gear lubricants.
(d) Determining overlap with an EPAdesignated recovered content product.
Qualifying biobased products that fall
under this item may, in some cases,
overlap with the following EPAdesignated recovered content product:
Re-refined lubricating oils. USDA is
requesting that manufacturers of these
qualifying biobased products provide
information for the BioPreferred Web
site of qualifying biobased products
about the intended uses of the product,
information on whether or not the
product contains any recovered
material, in addition to biobased
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
63328
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ingredients, and performance standards
against which the product has been
tested. This information will assist
Federal agencies in determining
whether or not a qualifying biobased
product overlaps with EPA-designated
re-refined lubricating oils and which
product should be afforded the
preference in purchasing.
Note to paragraph (d): Biobased gear
lubricant products within this designated
item can compete with similar gear lubricant
products with recycled content. Under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency designated re-refined
lubricating oils containing recovered
materials as items for which Federal agencies
must give preference in their purchasing
programs. The designation can be found in
the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline,
40 CFR 247.11.
§ 2902.48 General purpose household
cleaners.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
(a) Definition. Products designed to
clean multiple common household
surfaces. This designated item does not
include products that are formulated for
use as disinfectants. Task-specific
cleaning products, such as spot and
stain removers, upholstery cleaners,
bathroom cleaners, glass cleaners, etc.,
are not included in this item.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
preferred procurement product must
have a minimum biobased content of at
least 39 percent, which shall be based
on the amount of qualifying biobased
carbon in the product as a percent of the
weight (mass) of the total organic carbon
in the finished product.
(c) Preference compliance date. No
later than [date one year after the date
of publication of the final rule],
procuring agencies, in accordance with
this part, will give a procurement
preference for qualifying biobased
general purpose household cleaners. By
that date, Federal agencies that have the
responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured
shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:02 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
biobased general purpose household
cleaners.
§ 2902.49
Industrial cleaners.
(a) Definition. Products used to
remove contaminants, such as
adhesives, inks, paint, dirt, soil, and
grease, from parts, products, tools,
machinery, equipment, vessels, floors,
walls, and other production-related
work areas. The cleaning products
within this item are usually solvents,
but may take other forms. They may be
used in either straight solution or
diluted with water in pressure washers,
or in hand wiping applications in
industrial or manufacturing settings,
such as inside vessels. Task-specific
cleaners used in industrial settings,
such as parts wash solutions, are not
included in this definition.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
preferred procurement product must
have a minimum biobased content of at
least 41 percent, which shall be based
on the amount of qualifying biobased
carbon in the product as a percent of the
weight (mass) of the total organic carbon
in the finished product.
(c) Preference compliance date. No
later than [date one year after the date
of publication of the final rule],
procuring agencies, in accordance with
this part, will give a procurement
preference for qualifying biobased
industrial cleaners. By that date, Federal
agencies that have the responsibility for
drafting or reviewing specifications for
items to be procured shall ensure that
the relevant specifications require the
use of biobased industrial cleaners.
§ 2902.50
Multipurpose cleaners.
(a) Definition. Products used to clean
dirt, grease, and grime from a variety of
items in both industrial and domestic
settings. This designated item does not
include products that are formulated for
use as disinfectants.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
preferred procurement product must
have a minimum biobased content of at
least 56 percent, which shall be based
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on the amount of qualifying biobased
carbon in the product as a percent of the
weight (mass) of the total organic carbon
in the finished product.
(c) Preference compliance date. No
later than [date one year after the date
of publication of the final rule],
procuring agencies, in accordance with
this part, will give a procurement
preference for qualifying biobased
multipurpose cleaners. By that date,
Federal agencies that have the
responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured
shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of
biobased multipurpose cleaners.
§ 2902.51
Parts wash solutions.
(a) Definition. Products that are
designed to clean parts in manual or
automatic cleaning systems. Such
systems include, but are not limited to,
soak vats and tanks, cabinet washers,
and ultrasonic cleaners.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The
preferred procurement product must
have a minimum biobased content of at
least 65 percent, which shall be based
on the amount of qualifying biobased
carbon in the product as a percent of the
weight (mass) of the total organic carbon
in the finished product.
(c) Preference compliance date. No
later than [date one year after the date
of publication of the final rule],
procuring agencies, in accordance with
this part, will give a procurement
preference for qualifying biobased parts
wash solutions. By that date, Federal
agencies that have the responsibility for
drafting or reviewing specifications for
items to be procured shall ensure that
the relevant specifications require the
use of biobased parts wash solutions.
Dated: October 16, 2008.
Boyd Rutherford,
Assistant Secretary for Administration, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. E8–25037 Filed 10–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–GL–P
E:\FR\FM\23OCP2.SGM
23OCP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 206 (Thursday, October 23, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63298-63328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25037]
[[Page 63297]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
7 CFR Part 2902
Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 63298]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
7 CFR Part 2902
RIN 0503-AA33
Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement
AGENCY: Departmental Administration, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to
amend the Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal
Procurement, by adding nine sections to designate the following nine
items within which biobased products would be afforded Federal
procurement preference: Chain and cable lubricants; corrosion
preventatives; food cleaners; forming lubricants; gear lubricants;
general purpose household cleaners; industrial cleaners; multipurpose
cleaners; and parts wash solutions. USDA also is proposing minimum
biobased content for each of these items.
DATES: USDA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until
December 22, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods. All
submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory
Information Number (RIN). The RIN for this rulemaking is 0503-AA33.
Also, please identify submittals as pertaining to the ``Proposed
Designation of Items.''
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: biopreferred@usda.gov. Include RIN number 0503-
AA33 and ``Proposed Designation of Items'' on the subject line. Please
include your name and address in your message.
Mail/commercial/hand delivery: Mail or deliver your
comments to: Shana Love, USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, Room 209A, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20250-0103.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
for communication for regulatory information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-
2600 (voice) and (202) 401-4133 (TDD).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shana Love, USDA, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, Room 209A, Whitten Building,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0103; e-mail:
biopreferred@usda.gov; phone (202) 205-4008. Information regarding the
Federal Procurement of Biobased Products (one part of the BioPreferred
Program) is available on the Internet at https://www.biopreferred.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
B. Items Proposed for Designation
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
D. Compliance Date for Procurement Preference and Incorporation
Into Specifications
V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information on These USDA-Designated
Items?
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
I. Authority
The designation of these items is proposed under the authority of
section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(FSRIA), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(FCEA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this document as ``section
9002'').
II. Background
Section 9002, as amended by the FCEA of 2008, provides for the
preferred procurement of biobased products by Federal procuring
agencies (referred to hereafter in this FR notice as the ``preferred
procurement program''). The definition of ``procuring agency'' in
section 9002, as amended by the FCEA of 2008, includes both Federal
agencies and ``a person that is a party to a contract with any Federal
agency, with respect to work performed under such a contract.'' Thus,
Federal contractors, as well as Federal agencies, are expressly subject
to the procurement preference provisions of section 9002.
Once USDA designates an item, procuring agencies are required
generally to purchase biobased products within these designated items
where the purchase price of the procurement item exceeds $10,000 or
where the quantity of such items or the functionally equivalent items
purchased over the preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or more.
Procuring agencies must procure biobased products within each
designated item unless they determine that products within a designated
item are not reasonably available within a reasonable period of time,
fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring
agencies, or are available only at an unreasonable price. As stated in
the Guidelines, biobased products that are merely incidental to Federal
funding are excluded from the preferred procurement program; that is,
the requirements to purchase biobased products do not apply to such
purchases if they are unrelated to or incidental to the purpose of the
Federal contract. To illustrate, you are awarded a Federal contract to
construct a Federal office building with elevators. The elevators
require hydraulic fluid to operate. Because stationary equipment
hydraulic fluids are an item that has been designated for preferred
procurement, the hydraulic fluid purchased for use in the elevators
would be subject to the requirements of section 9002. In order to
install these elevators, cranes may be used. These cranes require
hydraulic fluid to operate. The hydraulic fluid purchased for the
maintenance of these cranes used in the performance of that contract,
however, is considered to be incidental to the purpose of the Federal
contract. Because it is incidental, it would not be subject to the
requirements of section 9002, even though some of the monies received
under the contract might be used to purchase the hydraulic fluid used
in the cranes.
In implementing the preferred procurement program for biobased
products, procuring agencies should follow their procurement rules and
Office of Federal Procurement Policy guidance on buying non-biobased
products when biobased products exist and should document exceptions
taken for price, performance, and availability.
USDA recognizes that the performance needs for a given application
are important criteria in making procurement decisions. USDA is not
requiring procuring agencies to limit their choices to biobased
products that fall under the items for designation in this proposed
rule. Rather, the effect of the designation of the items is to require
procuring agencies to determine their
[[Page 63299]]
performance needs, determine whether there are qualified biobased
products that fall under the designated items that meet the reasonable
performance standards for those needs, and purchase such qualified
biobased products to the maximum extent practicable as required by
section 9002.
Section 9002(a)(3)(B), as amended by the FCEA of 2008, requires
USDA to provide information to procuring agencies on the availability,
relative price, performance, and environmental and public health
benefits of such items and to recommend where appropriate the minimum
level of biobased content to be contained in the procured products.
It is the responsibility of the manufacturers to ``self-certify''
that each product being offered as a biobased product for preferred
procurement contains qualifying feedstock. USDA will develop a
monitoring process for these self-certifications to ensure
manufacturers are using qualifying feedstocks. If misrepresentations
are found, USDA will remove the subject biobased product from the
preferred procurement program and may take further actions as deemed
appropriate.
Subcategorization. Most of the items USDA is considering for
designation for preferred procurement cover a wide range of products.
For some items, there are groups of products within the item that meet
different markets and uses and/or different performance specifications.
For example, within the designated item ``hand cleaners and
sanitizers,'' some products are required to meet performance
specifications for sanitizing, while other products do not need to meet
these specifications. Where such subgroups exist, USDA intends to
create subcategories. For example, for the item ``hand cleaners and
sanitizers,'' USDA has determined it is reasonable to create a ``hand
cleaner'' subcategory and a ``hand sanitizer'' subcategory. Sanitizing
specifications would be applicable to the latter subcategory, but not
the former. In sum, USDA looks at the products within each item to
evaluate whether there are groups of products within the item that meet
different performance specifications and, where USDA finds this type of
difference, it intends to create subcategories.
For some items, however, USDA may not have sufficient information
at the time of proposal to create subcategories within an item. For
example, USDA may know that there are different performance
specifications that deicing products are required to meet, but it has
only information on one type of deicing product. In such instances,
USDA may either designate the item without creating subcategories
(i.e., defer the creation of subcategories) or designate one
subcategory and defer designation of other subcategories within the
item until additional information is obtained.
Within today's proposed rule, USDA is not proposing subcategories
for any of the nine items being proposed for designation, but is
requesting specific comments on the appropriateness of creating
subcategories within several items.
Minimum Biobased Contents. The minimum biobased contents being
proposed with today's rule are based on products for which USDA has
biobased content test data. In addition to considering the biobased
content test data for each item, USDA also considers other factors
including product performance information and the range, groupings, and
breaks in the biobased content test data array. Consideration of this
information allows USDA to establish minimum biobased contents on a
broad set of factors to assist the Federal procurement community in its
decisions to purchase biobased products.
USDA makes every effort to obtain biobased content test data on
multiple products within each item. For most designated items, USDA has
biobased content test data on more than one product within a designated
item. However, USDA must rely on biobased product manufacturers to
voluntarily submit product information and, in some cases, USDA has
been able to obtain biobased content data for only a single product
within a designated item. As USDA obtains additional data on the
biobased contents for products within these designated items, USDA will
evaluate whether the minimum biobased content for a designated item
will be revised.
USDA anticipates that the minimum biobased content of an item that
is based on a single product is more likely to change as additional
products within that item are identified and tested. In today's
proposed rule, none of the minimum biobased contents for the designated
items are based on a single tested product.
Where USDA receives additional information on biobased content for
products within these proposed items during the public comment period,
USDA will take that information into consideration when establishing
the minimum biobased content when the items are designated in the final
rulemaking.
Overlap with EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline program for
recovered content products under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Section 6002. Some of the products that are biobased items
designated for preferred procurement under the preferred procurement
program may also be items the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
designated under the EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG)
for Products Containing Recovered Materials. Where that occurs, an EPA-
designated recovered content product (also known as ``recycled content
products'' or ``EPA-designated products'') has priority in Federal
procurement over the qualifying biobased product as identified in 7 CFR
Sec. 2902.2. In situations where it believes there may be an overlap,
USDA is asking manufacturers of qualifying biobased products to provide
additional product and performance information to Federal agencies to
assist them in determining whether the biobased products in question
are, or are not, the same products for the same uses as the recovered
content products. As this information becomes available, USDA will
place it on the BioPreferred Web site with its catalog of qualifying
biobased products.
In cases where USDA believes an overlap with EPA-designated
recovered content products may occur, manufacturers are being asked to
indicate the various suggested uses of their product and the
performance standards against which a particular product has been
tested. In addition, depending on the type of biobased product,
manufacturers are being asked to provide other types of information,
such as whether the product contains fossil energy-based components
(including petroleum, coal, and natural gas) and whether the product
contains recovered materials. Federal agencies may also ask
manufacturers for information on a product's biobased content and its
profile against environmental and health measures and life-cycle costs
(the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES)
analysis or ASTM Standard D7075,''Standard Practice for Evaluating and
Reporting Environmental Performance of Biobased Products,'' for
evaluating and reporting on environmental performance of biobased
products). Such information will permit agencies to determine whether
or not an overlap occurs. Detailed information on the BEES analytical
tool can be found on the Web site https://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/
software/bees.html. Summary information on ASTM Standard D7075, and
other ASTM standards, can be
[[Page 63300]]
found on ASTM's Web site at https://www.astm.org.
Section 6002 of RCRA requires a procuring agency procuring an item
designated by EPA generally to procure such items composed of the
highest percentage of recovered materials content practicable. However,
a procuring agency may decide not to procure such an item based on a
determination that the item fails to meet the reasonable performance
standards or specifications of the procuring agency. An item with
recovered materials content may not meet reasonable performance
standards or specifications, for example, if the use of the item with
recovered materials content would jeopardize the intended end use of
the item.
Where a biobased item is used for the same purposes and to meet the
same Federal agency performance requirements as an EPA-designated
recovered content product, the Federal agency must purchase the
recovered content product. For example, if a biobased hydraulic fluid
is to be used as a fluid in hydraulic systems and because ``lubricating
oils containing re-refined oil'' has already been designated by EPA for
that purpose, then the Federal agency must purchase the EPA-designated
recovered content product, ``lubricating oils containing re-refined
oil.'' If, on the other hand, that biobased hydraulic fluid is to be
used to address a Federal agency's certain environmental or health
performance requirements that the EPA-designated recovered content
product would not meet, then the biobased product should be given
preference, subject to cost, availability, and performance.
This proposed rule designates one item for preferred procurement
for which there may be overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content
product. This item is ``gear lubricants,'' which, depending on how they
are used, may overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product
``Re-refined Lubricating Oils.'' EPA provides recovered materials
content recommendations for this recovered content product in a
Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN I). The RMAN recommendations
for this CPG product can be found by accessing EPA's Web site https://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure/products.htm and then clicking on
the appropriate product name.
Federal Government Purchase of ``Green'' Products. Three components
of the Federal government's green purchasing program are the Biobased
Products Preferred Purchasing Program, the Environmental Protection
Agency's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline for Products Containing
Recovered Materials, and the Environmentally Preferable Products
Program. The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) and
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) encourage agencies to
implement these components comprehensively when purchasing products and
services.
Procuring agencies should note that not all biobased products are
``environmentally preferable.'' For example, unless cleaning products
contain no or reduced levels of metals and toxic and hazardous
constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life, the environment,
and/or workers. Household cleaning products that are formulated to be
disinfectants are required, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to be registered with EPA and must meet
specific labeling requirements warning of the potential risks
associated with misuse of such products. When purchasing
environmentally preferable cleaning products, many Federal agencies
specify that products must meet Green Seal standards \1\ for
institutional cleaning products or that products must have been
reformulated in accordance with recommendations from the U.S. EPA's
Design for the Environment (DfE) program. Both the Green Seal standards
and the DfE program identify chemicals of concern in cleaning products.
These include zinc and other metals, formaldehyde, ammonia, alkyl
phenol ethoxylates, ethylene glycol ethers, and volatile organic
compounds. In addition, both require that cleaning products have
neutral or less caustic pH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reference to these standards does not represent or imply any
endorsement by USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, some biobased products may be better for the
environment than some products that meet Green Seal standards for
institutional cleaning products or that have been reformulated in
accordance with EPA's DfE program. To fully compare products, one must
look at the ``cradle-to-grave'' impacts of the manufacture, use, and
disposal of products. Biobased products that will be available for
preferred procurement under this program have been assessed as to their
``cradle-to-grave'' impacts.
One consideration of a product's impact on the environment is
whether (and to what degree) it introduces new, fossil carbon into the
atmosphere. Qualifying biobased products offer the user the opportunity
to manage the carbon cycle and limit the introduction of new, fossil
carbon into the atmosphere, whereas non-biobased products derived from
fossil fuels add new, fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
Manufacturers of qualifying biobased products under the preferred
procurement program will be able to provide, at the request of Federal
agencies, factual information on environmental and human health effects
of their products, including the results of the BEES analysis, which
examines 11 different environmental parameters, including human health,
or the comparable ASTM D7075. Therefore, USDA encourages Federal
procurement agencies to examine all available information on the
environmental and human health effects of products when making their
purchasing decisions.
Other Preferred Procurement Programs. Federal procurement officials
should also note that biobased products may be available for purchase
by Federal agencies through the AbilityOne Program (formerly known as
the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) program). Under this program, members of
organizations including the National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and
the National Institute for the Severely Handicapped (NISH) offer
products and services for preferred procurement by Federal agencies. A
search of the AbilityOne Program's JWOD online catalog (https://
www.jwodcatalog.com) indicated that three of the items being proposed
today (``general purpose household cleaners'', ``industrial cleaners'',
and ``multipurpose cleaners'') are available through the AbilityOne
Program. While none of the specific products within these items are
identified in the JWOD online catalog as being biobased products, there
currently are biobased cleaning products available from at least one
NIB affiliate. Also, because additional categories of products are
frequently added to the AbilityOne Program, it is possible that
biobased products within other items being proposed for designation
today may be available through the AbilityOne Program in the future.
Procurement of biobased products through the AbilityOne Program would
further the objectives of both the AbilityOne Program and the preferred
procurement program.
Interagency Council. USDA has created, and is chairing, an
``interagency council'' with membership selected from among Federal
stakeholders to the preferred procurement program. To augment its own
research, USDA consults with this council in identifying the order of
item designation, manufacturers producing and marketing products that
fall within an item proposed for designation, performance
[[Page 63301]]
standards used by Federal agencies evaluating products to be procured,
and warranty information used by manufacturers of end user equipment
and other products with regard to biobased products.
Future Designations. In making future designations, USDA will
continue to conduct market searches to identify manufacturers of
biobased products within items. USDA will then contact the identified
manufacturers to solicit samples of their products for voluntary
submission for biobased content testing and for the BEES analytical
tool. Based on these results, USDA will then propose new items for
designation for preferred procurement.
As stated in the preamble to the first six items designated for
preferred procurement (71 FR 13686, March 16, 2006), USDA plans to
identify approximately 10 items in each future rulemaking. USDA has
developed a preliminary list of items for future designation. This list
is available on the BioPreferred Web site. While this list presents an
initial prioritization of items for designation, USDA cannot identify
with certainty which items will be presented in each of the future
rulemakings. Items may be added or dropped and the information
necessary to designate an item may take more time to obtain than an
item lower on the prioritization list.
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule
USDA is proposing to designate the following nine items for
preferred procurement: Chain and cable lubricants; corrosion
preventatives; food cleaners; forming lubricants; gear lubricants;
general purpose household cleaners; industrial cleaners; multipurpose
cleaners; and parts wash solutions. USDA is also proposing minimum
biobased content for each of these items (see Section IV.C). Lastly,
USDA is proposing a date by which Federal agencies must incorporate
designated items into their procurement specifications (see Section
IV.D).
In today's proposed rule, USDA is providing information on its
findings as to the availability, economic and technical feasibility,
environmental and public health benefits, and life-cycle costs for each
of the designated items. Information on the availability, relative
price, performance, and environmental and public health benefits of
individual products within each of these items is not presented in this
notice. Further, USDA has reached an agreement with manufacturers not
to publish their names in the Federal Register when designating items.
This agreement was reached to encourage manufacturers to submit
products for testing to support the designation of an item. Once an
item has been designated, USDA will encourage the manufacturers of
products within the designated item to voluntarily make their names and
other contact information available for the BioPreferred Web site.
Warranties. Some of the items, including subcategories, being
proposed for designation today may affect maintenance warranties. As
time and resources allow, USDA will work with original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) on addressing any effect the use of biobased
products may have on their maintenance warranties. At this time,
however, USDA does not have information available as to whether or not
OEMs will state that the use of these products will void their
maintenance warranties. This does not mean that use of biobased
products will void warranties, only that USDA does not currently have
such information. USDA encourages manufacturers of biobased products to
test their products against all relevant standards, including those
that affect warranties, and to work with OEMs to ensure that biobased
products will not void maintenance warranties when used. Whenever
manufacturers of biobased products find that existing performance
standards for maintenance warranties are not relevant or appropriate
for biobased products, USDA is willing to assist them in working with
the appropriate OEMs to develop tests that are relevant and appropriate
for the end uses in which biobased products are intended. If, in spite
of these efforts, there is insufficient information regarding the use
of a biobased product and its effect of maintenance warranties, USDA
notes that the procurement agent would not be required to buy such a
product. As information is available on warranties, USDA will make such
information available on the BioPreferred Web site.
Additional Information. USDA is working with manufacturers and
vendors to make all relevant product and manufacturer contact
information available on the BioPreferred Web site before a procuring
agency asks for it, in order to make the preferred program more
efficient. Steps USDA has implemented, or will implement, include:
Making direct contact with submitting companies through e-mail and
phone conversations to encourage completion of product listing;
coordinating outreach efforts with intermediate material producers to
encourage participation of their customer base; conducting targeted
outreach with industry and commodity groups to educate stakeholders on
the importance of providing complete product information; participating
in industry conferences and meetings to educate companies on program
benefits and requirements; and communicating the potential for expanded
markets beyond the Federal government, to include State and local
governments, as well as the general public markets. Section V provides
instructions to agencies on how to obtain this information on products
within these items through the following Web site: https://
www.biopreferred.gov.
Comments. USDA invites comment on the proposed designation of these
items, including the definition, proposed minimum biobased content, and
any of the relevant analyses performed during the selection of these
items. In addition, USDA invites comments and information in the
following areas:
1. One item, ``gear lubricants,'' may overlap with one of the
products designated under EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline for
Products Containing Recovered Material. To help procuring agencies in
making their purchasing decisions between biobased products within the
proposed designated items that overlap with products containing
recovered material, USDA is requesting product specific information on
unique performance attributes, environmental and human health effects,
disposal costs, and other attributes that would distinguish biobased
products from products containing recovered material as well as non-
biobased products.
2. We have attempted to identify relevant and appropriate
performance standards and other relevant measures of performance for
each of the proposed items. If you know of other such standards or
relevant measures of performance for any of the proposed items, USDA
requests that you submit information identifying such standards and
measures, including their name (and other identifying information as
necessary), identifying who is using the standard/measure, and
describing the circumstances under which the product is being used.
3. Many biobased products within the items being proposed for
designation will have positive environmental and human health
attributes. USDA is seeking comments on such attributes in order to
provide additional information on the BioPreferred Web site. This
information will then be available to Federal procuring agencies and
will assist them in making ``best value'' purchase decisions. When
possible, please provide appropriate documentation to support the
[[Page 63302]]
environmental and human health attributes you describe.
4. Several items (i.e., ``corrosion preventatives,'' ``industrial
cleaners,'' and ``multipurpose cleaners'') have wide ranges of tested
biobased contents. For the reasons discussed later in this preamble,
USDA is proposing minimum biobased content levels for these items that
would allow a high percentage of the tested products to be eligible for
preferred procurement. USDA welcomes comments on the appropriateness of
the proposed minimum biobased contents for these items and whether
there are potential subcategories within the items that should be
considered.
5. USDA considered combining the proposed items ``gear
lubricants,'' ``chain and cable lubricants,'' and ``forming
lubricants'' into a single designated item with multiple subcategories.
The decision to propose the items separately was based largely on the
differences in functional performance between the items. While the
basic purpose of products within each of these items is to provide
lubrication, the applications and the conditions under which they
perform are very different. USDA requests comments from procuring
agencies and manufacturers of products within these items specifically
addressing the advantages and disadvantages of these items being
designated separately versus combined into a single item with
subcategories.
All comments should be submitted as directed in the ADDRESSES
section above.
To assist you in developing your comments, the background
information used in proposing these items for designation has been
assembled in a technical support document, ``Technical Support for
Proposed Rule--Round 5 Designated Items,'' which is available on the
BioPreferred Web site. The technical support document can be located by
clicking on the Proposed and Final Regulations link on the left side of
the BioPreferred Web site's home page (https://www.biopreferred.gov). At
the BioPreferred Web site, click on the Proposed and Final Regulations
link on the left side of the page. At the next screen, click on the
Supporting Documentation link under Round 5 Designated Items under the
Proposed Regulations section. This will bring you to the link to the
technical support document.
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
In order to designate items (generic groupings of specific products
such as crankcase oils or products that contain qualifying biobased
fibers) for preferred procurement, section 9002 requires USDA to
consider: (1) The availability of items and (2) the economic and
technological feasibility of using the items, including the life-cycle
costs of the items.
In considering an item's availability, USDA uses several sources of
information. USDA performs Internet searches, contacts trade
associations (such as the Bio organization) and commodity groups,
searches the Thomas Register (a database, used as a resource for
finding companies and products manufactured in North America,
containing over 173,000 entries), and contacts individual manufacturers
and vendors to identify those manufacturers and vendors with biobased
products within items being considered for designation. USDA uses the
results of these same searches to determine if an item is generally
available.
In considering an item's economic and technological feasibility,
USDA examines evidence pointing to the general commercial use of an
item and its cost and performance characteristics. This information is
obtained from the sources used to assess an item's availability.
Commercial use, in turn, is evidenced by any manufacturer and vendor
information on the availability, relative prices, and performance of
their products as well as by evidence of an item being purchased by a
procuring agency or other entity, where available. In sum, USDA
considers an item economically and technologically feasible for
purposes of designation if products within that item are being offered
and used in the marketplace.
In considering the life-cycle costs of items proposed for
designation, USDA uses the BEES analytical tool to test individual
products within each proposed item. The BEES analytical tool measures
the environmental performance and the economic performance of a
product.
Environmental performance is measured in the BEES analytical tool
using the internationally-standardized and science-based, life-cycle
assessment approach specified in the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14000 standards. The BEES environmental
performance analysis, which includes human health as one of its
components, is a ``cradle-to-grave'' assessment of a product. In it,
all stages in the life of a product are analyzed: Raw material
production; manufacture; transportation; installation; use; and
recycling and waste management. The time period over which
environmental performance is measured begins with raw material
production and ends with disposal (waste management). The BEES
environmental performance analysis also addresses products made from
biobased feedstocks.
Economic performance in the BEES analysis is measured using the
ASTM Standard E917, ``Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs
of Buildings and Building Systems,'' which covers the costs of initial
investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and
disposal. The time frame for economic performance extends from the
purchase of the product to final disposal. USDA then utilizes the BEES
results of individual products within a designated item in its
consideration of the life-cycle costs at the item level.
The environmental performance results are reported as both an
impact value and as an environmental performance score for 12 different
environmental impact areas:
Acidification,
Criteria pollutants,
Ecological toxicity,
Eutrophication,
Fossil fuel depletion,
Global warming,
Habitat alteration,
Human health,
Indoor air quality,
Ozone depletion,
Smog, and
Water intake.
For each environmental impact area, BEES estimates the impact a
product has in an area using certain units to standardize impacts. For
example, acidification is measured as ``millimoles of hydrogen
equivalents,'' while eutrophication is measured as ``grams of nitrogen
equivalents.'' Thus, for acidification, BEES estimates how many
millimoles of hydrogen equivalents and how many grams of nitrogen
equivalents a product generates as the result of its production and
use. These values are referred to as ``impact values'' and are
calculated on a per functional unit basis. For example, the impact
value for eutrophication for a chain and cable lubricant product was
estimated to be 105 grams of nitrogen equivalents for one gallon of
product (the functional unit).
The impact values for a product are then used to determine the
environmental performance scores of a product within each of the 12
environmental impact areas. The
[[Page 63303]]
environmental performance score is a measure of the share a product
contributes towards the annual per capita U.S. environmental impact in
one of the 12 environmental impact areas. For example, the global
warming impact value of a chain and cable lubricant product was
estimated to be 9,710 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents. The total
amount of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted in the United States in
one year is divided by the U.S. population to yield a ``global warming
per person'' value. The product's global warming impact value is then
divided by the ``global warming per person'' value to derive the
product's share of global warming. Specifically, for this example, the
global warming environmental performance score is estimated to be
0.0061. That is, every one gallon of this chain and cable lubricant is
estimated to contribute 0.0061 percent to the global warming per person
value.
For both the impact values and the environmental performance
scores, the BEES analysis uses a single unit of comparison associated
with each designated item. The basis for the unit of comparison is the
``functional unit,'' defined so that the products compared within an
item are true substitutes for one another. If significant differences
have been identified in the useful lives of alternative products within
a designated item (e.g., if one product lasts twice as long as
another), the functional unit includes reference to a time dimension to
account for the frequency of product replacement. The functional unit
also accounts for products used in different amounts for equivalent
service. For example, one surface coating product may be
environmentally and economically preferable to another on a pound-for-
pound basis, but may require twice the mass to cover one square foot of
surface, and last half as long, as the other product. To account for
these performance differences, the functional unit for the surface
coating item could be ``one square foot of application for 20 years''
instead of ``one pound of surface coating product.'' The functional
unit provides the critical reference point to which all BEES results
for products within an item are scaled. Because functional units vary
from item to item, performance comparisons are valid only among
products within a designated item.
The complete results of the BEES analysis, extrapolated to the item
level, for each item proposed for designation in today's proposed rule
can be found in the technical support document for this proposed rule.
As discussed above, the BEES analysis includes information on the
environmental performance, human health impacts, and economic
performance. In addition, ASTM Standard D7075, which manufacturers may
use in lieu of the BEES analytical tool, provides similar information.
USDA is working with manufacturers and vendors to make this information
available on the BioPreferred Web site in order to make the preferred
procurement program more efficient.
As discussed earlier, USDA has also implemented, or will implement,
several other steps intended to educate the manufacturers and other
stakeholders on the benefits of this program and the need to make this
information, including manufacturer contact information, available on
the BioPreferred Web site in order to then make it available to
procurement officials. Additional information on specific products
within the items proposed for designation may also be obtained directly
from the manufacturers of the products. USDA has also provided a link
on the BioPreferred Web site to the Defense Standardization Program and
to General Services Administration (GSA)-related standards lists used
as guidance when procuring products. These lists can be accessed
through the ``Selling to the Federal Government'' link on the
BioPreferred Web site.
USDA recognizes that information related to the functional
performance of biobased products is a primary factor in making the
decision to purchase these products. USDA is gathering information on
industry standard test methods and performance standards that
manufacturers are using to evaluate the functional performance of their
products. (Test methods are procedures used to provide information on a
certain attribute of a product. For example, a test method might
determine how many bacteria are killed. Performance standards identify
the level at which a product must perform in order for it to be
``acceptable'' to the entity that set the performance standard. For
example, a performance standard might require that a certain percentage
(e.g., 95 percent) of the bacteria must be killed through the use of
the product.) The primary source of information on these test methods
and performance standards are manufacturers of biobased products within
these items. Additional test methods and performance standards are also
identified during meetings of the Interagency council and during the
review process for each proposed rule. We have listed, under the
detailed discussion of each item proposed for designation (presented in
Section IV.B), the functional performance test methods, performance
standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance
associated with the functional aspects of products identified during
the development of this Federal Register notice for these items.
While this process identifies many of the relevant test methods and
standards, USDA recognizes that those identified herein do not
represent all of the methods and standards that may be applicable for a
designated item or for any individual product within the designated
item. As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is requesting
identification of any other relevant performance standards and measures
of performance. As the program becomes fully implemented, these and
other additional relevant performance standards will be available on
the BioPreferred Web site.
In gathering information relevant to the analyses discussed above
for this proposed rule, USDA has made extensive efforts to contact and
request information and product samples within the items proposed for
designation. For product information, USDA has attempted to contact
representatives of the manufacturers of biobased products identified by
the preferred procurement program. For product samples on which to
conduct biobased content tests and BEES analysis, USDA has attempted to
obtain samples and BEES input information for at least five different
suppliers of products within each item in today's proposed rule.
However, because the submission of information and samples is on a
strictly voluntary basis, USDA was able to obtain information and
samples only from those manufacturers who were willing voluntarily to
invest the resources required to gather and submit the information and
samples. The data presented are all the data that were submitted in
response to USDA requests for information from manufacturers of the
products within the items proposed for designation. While USDA would
prefer to have complete data on the full range of products within each
item, the data that were submitted are sufficient to support
designation of the items in today's proposed rule.
To propose an item for designation, USDA must have sufficient
information on a sufficient number of products within an item to be
able to assess its availability and its economic and technological
feasibility, including its life-cycle costs. For some items, there may
be numerous products available. For other items, there may be very few
[[Page 63304]]
products currently available. Given the infancy of the market for some
items, it is not unexpected that even single-product items will be
identified. Further, given that the intent of section 9002 is largely
to stimulate the production of new biobased products and to energize
emerging markets for those products, USDA has determined it is
appropriate to designate an item or subcategory for preferred
procurement even when there is only a single product with a single
supplier. However, USDA has also determined that in such situations it
is appropriate to defer the effective preferred procurement date until
such time that more than one supplier is identified in order to provide
choice to procuring agencies. Similarly, the documented availability,
benefits, and life-cycle costs of even a very small percentage of all
products that may exist within an item are also considered sufficient
to support designation.
B. Items Proposed for Designation
USDA uses a model (as summarized below) to identify and prioritize
items for designation. Through this model, USDA has identified over 100
items for potential designation under the preferred procurement
program. A list of these items and information on the model can be
accessed on the BioPreferred Web site at https://www.biopreferred.gov.
In general, items are developed and prioritized for designation by
evaluating them against program criteria established by USDA and by
gathering information from other government agencies, private industry
groups, and manufacturers. These evaluations begin by look at the cost,
performance, and availability of products within each item. USDA then
considers the following points:
Are there manufacturers interested in providing the
necessary test information on products within a particular item?
Are there a number of manufacturers producing biobased
products in this item?
Are there products available in this item?
What level of difficulty is expected when designating this
item?
Is there Federal demand for the product?
Are Federal procurement personnel looking for biobased
products?
Will an item create a high demand for biobased feed stock?
Does manufacturing of products within this item increase
potential for rural development?
After completing this evaluation, USDA prioritizes the list of
items for designation. USDA then gathers information on products within
the highest priority items and, as sufficient information becomes
available for groups of approximately 10 items, a new rulemaking
package is developed to designate the items within that group. USDA
points out that the list of items may change, with items being added or
dropped, and that the order in which items are proposed for designation
is likely to change because the information necessary to designate an
item may take more time to obtain than an item lower on the list.
In today's proposed rule, USDA is proposing to designate the
following items for the preferred procurement program: Chain and cable
lubricants; corrosion preventatives; food cleaners; forming lubricants;
gear lubricants; general purpose household cleaners; industrial
cleaners; multipurpose cleaners; and parts wash solutions. USDA has
determined that each of these proposed items meets the necessary
statutory requirements--namely, that they are being produced with
biobased products and that their procurement by procuring agencies will
carry out the following objectives of section 9002:
To increase demand for biobased products, which would in
turn increase demand for agricultural commodities that can serve as
feedstocks for the production of biobased products;
To spur development of the industrial base through value-
added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities;
and
To enhance the Nation's energy security by substituting
biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural
gas.
Further, USDA has sufficient information on the items to determine
their availability and to conduct the requisite analyses to determine
their biobased content and their economic and technological
feasibility, including life-cycle costs.
Overlap with EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline program for
recovered content products. In today's proposed rule, one item may
overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product ``Re-refined
Lubricating Oils.'' This item is ``gear lubricants.'' For this item,
USDA is requesting that information on the qualifying biobased ``gear
lubricants'' be made available by their manufacturers to assist Federal
agencies in determining if an overlap exists between ``gear
lubricants'' and ``Re-refined Lubricating Oils'' (the applicable EPA-
designated recovered content product).
As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is requesting information
on overlap situations to further help procuring agencies make informed
decisions when faced with purchasing a recovered content material
product or a biobased product. As this information is developed, USDA
will make it available on the BioPreferred Web site.
Exemptions. As explained in the May 14, 2008 Federal Register
notice (73 FR 27928) promulgating the Round 2 designated items, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department
of Defense (DoD) are exempt from the procurement preference
requirements that would be afforded to the items contained in today's
proposed rule with respect to products used in space applications and
combat and combat-related applications, respectively. In other words,
they would apply to operations underlying NASA's and DoD's mission,
such as janitorial services contracts, but not to uses on the space
shuttle and military equipment. These ``blanket'' exemptions are
contained in subpart A of part 2902. Therefore, today's proposed rule
would not apply to NASA and DoD, as provided in subpart A of part 2902.
Although each item in today's proposed rule would be exempt from
the procurement preference requirement, this exemption does not extend
to contractors performing work for NASA or DoD other than direct
maintenance and support of the space shuttle and combat equipment. For
example, if a contractor is producing a part for use on the space
shuttle, the metalworking fluid the contractor uses to produce the part
should be biobased (provided it meets the specifications for
metalworking). The exemption does apply, however, if the product being
purchased by the contractor is for use in combat or combat-related
missions or for use in space applications. For example, if the part
being produced by the contractor would actually be part of the space
shuttle, then the exemption applies.
USDA points out that it is not the intent of these exemptions to
imply that biobased products are inferior to non-biobased products. If
manufacturers of biobased products can meet the concerns of these two
agencies, USDA is willing to reconsider such exemptions on an item-by-
item basis.
Each of the proposed designated items are discussed in the
following sections.
1. Chain and Cable Lubricants
Chain and cable lubricants are products designed to provide
lubrication for such applications as bar and roller chains, sprockets,
and wire
[[Page 63305]]
ropes and cables. The products may also be designed to prevent rust and
corrosion in these applications.
USDA identified 20 different manufacturers producing 37 individual
biobased chain and cable lubricant products. These 20 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased chain and cable
lubricants, merely those identified during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that
these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers
and stakeholders identified two test methods (as shown below) used in
evaluating products within this item. While there may be additional
test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications,
and other measures of performance, applicable to products within this
item, the two test methods identified by manufacturers of products
within this item are:
Test Methods
Shake Flask Test (CG-2000) used by the lubricant industry
to evaluate biodegradability (Environmental Protection Agency
560/6-82-003); and
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (Environmental
Protection Agency 600/4-90-027).
USDA contacted procurement officials with various procuring
agencies including the GSA, several offices within the Defense
Logistics Agency, the OFEE, USDA Departmental Administration, the
National Park Service, EPA, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and OMB in
an effort to gather information on the purchases of chain and cable
lubricants and products within the other eight items proposed for
designation today. Communications with these officials led to the
conclusion that obtaining credible current usage statistics and
specific potential markets within the Federal government for biobased
products within the proposed designated items is not possible at this
time.
Most of the contacted officials reported that procurement data are
reported in higher level groupings of materials and supplies than the
proposed designated items. Using terms that best match the items in
today's proposed rule, USDA queried the GSA database for Federal
purchases of products within today's proposed items. The results
indicate purchases of products within items in today's proposed rule.
The results of this inquiry can be found in the technical support
document for this proposed rule. Also, the purchasing of such materials
as part of contracted services and with individual purchase cards used
to purchase products locally further obscures credible data on
purchases of specific products.
USDA also investigated the Web site FEDBIZOPPS.gov, a site which
lists Federal contract purchase opportunities greater than $25,000. The
information provided on this Web site, however, is for broad categories
of products rather than the specific types of products that are
included in today's proposed rule. Therefore, USDA has been unable to
obtain data on the amount of chain and cable lubricants purchased by
procuring agencies. However, Federal agencies perform, or procure
contract services to perform, activities, such as maintenance, clean-
up, and tree removal, in which chain and cable lubricants are used. For
example, although quantities were not obtained, the National Park
Service is known to be using biobased chain and cable lubricants at
some of its parks. Thus, there is a need for chain and cable
lubricants. Designation of ``chain and cable lubricants'' will promote
the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this
program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life-cycle costs of biobased chain and cable lubricants was performed
for three of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact
values for these three lubricants are presented in Table 1a. The
environmental performance scores are presented in Table 1b and in
Figure 1.
Table 1a--Impact Values for Chain and Cable Lubricants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B Sample C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification...................... millimoles of hydrogen ion 7,210 6,470 5,130
equivalents.
Criteria Air Pollutants............ micro Disability-Adjusted 0.532 0.467 0.840
Life Years.
Ecological Toxicity................ grams of 2,4-dichloro- 77.1 69.7 1,950
phenoxy-acetic acid.
Eutrophication..................... grams of nitrogen 105 94.6 246
equivalent.
Fossil Fuel Depletion.............. megajoules of surplus 43.6 39.9 83.6
energy.
Global Warming..................... grams of carbon dioxide 9,710 8,660 29,500
equivalents.
Habitat Alteration................. threatened and endangered 0 0 0
species count.
Human Health....................... grams of toluene equivalent 61,500 54,800 316,000
Indoor Air......................... grams of total volatile 0 0 0
organic compounds.
Ozone Depletion.................... grams of chloroflouro- 1.15E-07 9.69E-08 1.30E-04
carbon-11 equivalents.
Smog............................... grams of nitrogen oxide 124 112 95.9
equivalents.
Water Intake....................... liters of water............ 1,430 1,290 6,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit...............................................1 gallon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1b--Environmental Performance Scores for Chain and Cable Lubricants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B Sample C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Environmental Performance Score \1\....................... 0.0674 0.0606 0.4202
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidification (5%).......................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................................ 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................................... 0.0104 0.0094 0.2630
Eutrophication (5%)......................................... 0.0272 0.0246 0.0640
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................................. 0.0062 0.0056 0.0118
Global Warming (16%)........................................ 0.0061 0.0054 0.0184
Habitat Alteration (16%).................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................................... 0.0043 0.0038 0.0219
[[Page 63306]]
Indoor Air (11%)............................................ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................................ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................................... 0.0049 0.0044 0.0038
Water Intake (3%)........................................... 0.0081 0.0073 0.0370
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) \2\................. 10.17 13.78 20.20
-----------------------------------------------
First Cost.................................................. 10.17 13.78 20.20
Future Cost (3.9%).......................................... (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functional Unit................................................. 1 gallon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among
competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23OC08.000
As seen in Table 1b, for the analyzed chain and cable lubricants,
the total environmental performance score ranges from 0.0606 to 0.4202
points per gallon of product and the life-cycle costs range from $10.17
to $20.20 (present value dollars) per gallon of product.
When evaluating the environmental performance scores presented in
Table 1b, as well as in the subsequent tables presented in this
preamble, it should be noted that comparisons of the environmental
performance scores are valid only among products within a designated
item. Thus, comparisons of the scores presented in Table 1b and the
scores presented in tables for other proposed designated items are not
meaningful. On the other hand, one can compare the impact values
reported in Table 1a with those in the other, corresponding impact
value tables. But such a comparison would only be useful if the
compared products would be used as substitutes for each other.
The numbers in parentheses following each of the 12 environmental
impacts listed in the tables presenting the environmental performance
scores in this preamble indicate weighting factors. The weighting
factors represent the relative importance of the 12 environmental
parameters, including human health impacts, which contribute to the
BEES environmental performance score. They are derived from lists of
the relative importance of these parameters developed by the EPA
[[Page 63307]]
Science Advisory Board for the purpose of advising EPA as to how best
to allocate its limited resources among environmental impact areas.
Note that a lower environmental performance score is better than a
higher score.
Life-cycle costs presented in the tables in this preamble are per
the appropriate functional unit for the proposed designated item.
Future costs are discounted to present value using the OMB discount
rate of 3.9 percent.
Present value dollars presented in this preamble represent the sum
of all costs associated with a product over a fixed period of time,
including any applicable costs for purchase, installation, replacement,
operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. Present value dollars
presented in th