Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47565-47588]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17au06-12]
[[Page 47566]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses
7 CFR Part 2902
RIN 0503-AA30
Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement
AGENCY: Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to
amend 7 CFR part 2902, Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for
Federal Procurement, to add 10 sections to designate the following 10
items within which biobased products would be afforded Federal
procurement preference, as provided for under section 9002 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002: Adhesive and mastic
removers; insulating foam for wall construction; hand cleaners and
sanitizers; composite panels; fluid-filled transformers; biodegradable
containers; fertilizers; metalworking fluids; sorbents; and graffiti
and grease removers. USDA also is proposing minimum biobased content
for each of these items. Once USDA designates an item, procuring
agencies are required generally to purchase biobased products within
these designated items where the purchase price of the procurement item
exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity of such items or the functionally
equivalent items purchased over the preceding fiscal year equaled
$10,000 or more.
DATES: USDA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until
October 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods. All
submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory
Information Number (RIN). The RIN for this rulemaking is 0503-AA30.
Also, please identify submittals as pertaining to the ``Proposed
Designation of Items.''
? Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
? E-mail: fb4p@oce.usda.gov. Include RIN number 0503-AA30
and ``Proposed Designation of Items'' on the subject line. Please
include your name and address in your message.
? Mail/commercial/hand delivery: Mail or deliver your
comments to: Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the Chief Economist, Office
of Energy Policy and New Uses, Room 4059, South Building, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., MS-3815, Washington, DC 20250-3815.
? Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
for communication for regulatory information (braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-
2600 (voice) and (202) 401-4133 (TDD).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the
Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Room 4059, South
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., MS-3815, Washington, DC 20250-
3815; e-mail: mduncan@oce.usda.gov; phone (202) 401-0461. Information
regarding the Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program
is available on the Internet at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rulemaking
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
B. Items Proposed for Designation
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
D. Effective Date for Procurement Preference and Incorporation
Into Specifications
V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information on These USDA-Designated Items?
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
I. Authority
The designation of these items is proposed under the authority of
section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(FSRIA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this document as ``section 9002'').
II. Background
Section 9002 of FSRIA, as amended by section 943 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 (Energy Policy Act), provides for
the preferred procurement of biobased products by procuring agencies.
Section 943 of the Energy Policy Act amended the definitions section of
FSRIA, 7 U.S.C. 8101, by adding a definition of ``procuring agency''
that includes both Federal agencies and ``any person contracting with
any Federal agency with respect to work performed under that
contract.'' The amendment also made Federal contractors, as well as
Federal agencies, expressly subject to the procurement preference
provisions of section 9002 of FSRIA. However, because this program
requires agencies to incorporate the preference for biobased products
into procurement specifications, the statutory amendment makes no
substantive change to the program. USDA amended the Guidelines to
incorporate the new definition of ``procuring agency'' through an
interim final rule.
Procuring agencies must procure biobased products within each
designated item unless they determine that products within a designated
item are not reasonably available within a reasonable period of time,
fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring
agencies, or are available only at an unreasonable price. As stated in
the Guidelines, biobased products that are merely incidental to Federal
funding are excluded from the preferred procurement program. In
implementing the preferred procurement program for biobased products,
procuring agencies should follow their procurement rules and Office of
Federal Procurement Policy guidance on buying non-biobased products
when biobased products exist and should document exceptions taken for
price, performance, and availability.
USDA recognizes that the performance needs for a given application
are important criteria in making procurement decisions. USDA is not
requiring procuring agencies to limit their choices to biobased
products that fall under the items for designation in this proposed
rule. Rather, the effect of the designation of the items is to require
procuring agencies to determine their performance needs, determine
whether there are qualified biobased products that fall under the
designated items that meet the reasonable performance standards for
those needs, and purchase such qualified biobased products to the
maximum extent practicable as required by section 9002.
Section 9002 also requires USDA to provide information to procuring
agencies on the availability, relative price, performance, and
environmental and public health benefits of such items
[[Page 47567]]
and, under section 9002(e)(1)(C), to recommend where appropriate the
minimum level of biobased content to be contained in the procured products.
Overlap with EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines program for
recovered content products. Some of the biobased items designated for
preferred procurement may overlap with products designated under the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Comprehensive Procurement
Guidelines program for recovered content products. Where that occurs,
an EPA-designated recovered content product (also known as ``recycled
content products'' or ``EPA-designated products'') has priority in
Federal procurement over the qualifying biobased product. In situations
where USDA believes there may be an overlap, it plans to ask
manufacturers of qualifying biobased products to provide additional
product and performance information including the various suggested
uses of their product and the performance standards against which a
particular product has been tested. In addition, depending on the type
of biobased product, manufacturers may also be asked to provide other
types of information, such as whether the product contains petroleum-,
coal-, or natural gas-based components and whether the product contains
recovered materials. Federal agencies may also ask manufacturers for
information on a product's biobased content and its profile against
environmental and human health measures and life cycle costs (the
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) analysis
or ASTM International (ASTM) Standard D7075 for evaluating and
reporting on environmental performance of biobased products). Such
information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether the
biobased products in question are, or are not, the same products for
the same uses as the recovered content products and will be available
on USDA's Web site with its catalog of qualifying biobased products.
Where a biobased item is used for the same purposes and to meet the
same requirements as an EPA-designated recovered content product, the
Federal agency must purchase the recovered content product. For
example, if a biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used as a fluid in
hydraulic systems and ``lubricating oils containing re-refined oil''
has already been designated by EPA for that purpose, then the Federal
agency must purchase the EPA-designated recovered content product,
``lubricating oils containing re-refined oil.'' If, on the other hand,
that biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used to address certain
environmental or health requirements that the EPA-designated recovered
content product would not meet, then the biobased product should be
given preference, subject to cost, availability, and performance.
Federal Government Purchase of ``Green'' Products. Three components
of the Federal government's green purchasing program are the Biobased
Products Preferred Purchasing Program, the Environmental Protection
Agency's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for products containing
recovered materials, and the Environmentally Preferable Products
Program. The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) and
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) encourage agencies to
implement these components comprehensively when purchasing products and
services.
In the case of cleaning products, procuring agencies should note
that not all biobased products are ``environmentally preferable.''
Unless the cleaning products contain no or reduced levels of metals and
toxic and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life,
the environment, or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable
cleaning products, many Federal agencies specify that products must
meet Green Seal standards for institutional cleaning products or that
products have been reformulated in accordance with recommendations from
the U.S. EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program. Both the Green
Seal standards and the DfE program identify chemicals of concern in
cleaning products. These include zinc and other metals, formaldehyde,
ammonia, alkylphenol ethoxylates, ethylene glycol, and volatile organic
compounds. In addition, both require that cleaning products have
neutral or less caustic pH.
On the other hand, some biobased products may be better for the
environment than some products that meet Green Seal standards for
institutional cleaning products or that have been reformulated in
accordance with the DfE program. To fully compare products, one must
look at the ``cradle-to-grave'' impacts of the manufacture, use, and
disposal of products. Biobased products that will be available for
preferred procurement under this program have been assessed as to their
``cradle-to-grave'' impacts.
One consideration of a product's impact on the environment is
whether (and to what degree) it introduces new fossil carbon into the
atmosphere. Qualifying biobased products offer the user the opportunity
to manage the carbon cycle and limit the introduction of new fossil
carbon into the atmosphere, whereas non-biobased products derived from
fossil fuels add new fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
Manufacturers of qualifying biobased products under the Federal
Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program (FB4P) will be able to
provide, at the request of Federal agencies, factual information on
environmental and human health effects of their products, including the
results of the BEES analysis, which examines 11 different environmental
parameters, including human health, or the comparable ASTM D7505.
Therefore, USDA encourages Federal procurement agencies to examine all
available information on the environmental and human health effects of
cleaning products when making their purchasing decisions.
Green Building Council. More than a dozen Federal agencies use the
U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Green Building Rating Systems for new construction,
building renovation, and building operation and maintenance. The
systems provide criteria for implementing sustainable design principles
in building design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Points
are assigned to each criterion, and building projects can be certified
as ``certified,'' ``silver,'' ``gold,'' or ``platinum,'' depending on
the number of points for which the project qualifies. LEED for New
Construction and Major Renovations (LEED-NC) includes a ``Materials &
Resources'' criterion, with one point allocated for the use of rapidly
renewable materials. Thus, the use of biobased construction products
can help agencies obtain LEED certification for their building
construction projects.
Interagency Council. USDA has created, and is chairing, an
``interagency council,'' with membership selected from among Federal
stakeholders to the FB4P. To augment its own research, USDA consults
with this council in identifying the order of item designation,
manufacturers producing and marketing products that fall within an item
proposed for designation, performance standards used by Federal
agencies evaluating products to be procured, and warranty information
used by manufacturers of end user equipment and other products with
regard to biobased products.
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rulemaking
Today, USDA is proposing to designate the following 10 items for
[[Page 47568]]
preferred procurement: Adhesive and mastic removers; insulating foam
for wall construction; hand cleaners and sanitizers; composite panels;
fluid-filled transformers; biodegradable containers; fertilizers;
metalworking fluids; sorbents; and graffiti and grease removers. USDA
is also proposing minimum biobased content for each of these items (see
Section IV.C). Lastly, USDA is proposing a date by which Federal
agencies must incorporate designated items into their procurement
specifications (see Section IV.D).
In today's proposed rulemaking, USDA is providing information on
its findings as to the availability, economic and technical
feasibility, environmental and public health benefits, and life cycle
costs for each of the 10 designated items. Information on the
availability, relative price, performance, and environmental and public
health benefits of individual products within each of these 10 items is
not presented in this notice. Further, USDA has reached an agreement
with manufacturers not to publish their names in the Federal Register
when designating items. This agreement was reached to encourage
manufacturers to submit products for testing to support the designation
of an item. Once an item has been designated, USDA will encourage the
manufacturers of products within the designated item to voluntarily
post their names and other contact information on the USDA FB4P Web site.
Warranties. Some of the items being proposed for designation today
may affect maintenance warranties. As time and resources allow, USDA
will work with manufacturers on addressing any effect the use of
biobased products may have on maintenance warranties. At this time,
however, USDA does not have information available as to whether or not
the manufacturers will state that the use of these products will void
maintenance warranties. USDA encourages manufacturers of biobased
products to work with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to ensure
that biobased products will not void maintenance warranties when used.
USDA is willing to assist manufacturers of the biobased products, if
they find that existing performance standards for maintenance
warranties are not relevant or appropriate for biobased products, in
working with the appropriate OEMs to develop tests that are relevant
and appropriate for the end uses in which biobased products are
intended. If despite these efforts there is insufficient information
regarding the use of a biobased product and its effect on maintenance
warranties, USDA notes that the procurement agent would not be required
to buy such a product. As information is available on warranties, USDA
will make such information available on its FB4P Web site.
Additional Information. USDA is working with manufacturers and
vendors to post all relevant product and manufacturer contact
information on the FB4P Web site before a procuring agency asks for it,
in order to make the preferred program more efficient. Steps USDA has
implemented, or will implement, include: Making direct contact with
submitting companies through email and phone conversations to encourage
completion of product listing; coordinating outreach efforts with
intermediate material producers to encourage participation of their
customer base; conducting targeted outreach with industry and commodity
groups to educate stakeholders on the importance of providing complete
product information; participating in industry conferences and meetings
to educate companies on program benefits and requirements; and
communicating the potential for expanded markets beyond the Federal
government, to include State and local governments, as well as the
general public markets. Section V provides instructions to agencies on
how to obtain this information on products within these items through
the following Web site: http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
Comments. USDA invites comment on the proposed designation of these
10 items, including the definition, proposed minimum biobased content,
and any of the relevant analyses performed during the selection of
these items. In addition, USDA invites comments and information in the
following areas:
1. Four of the items being proposed for designation (insulating
foam, composite panels, fertilizers, and sorbents) may overlap with
products designated under EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines
for products containing recovered material. To help procuring agencies
in making their purchasing decisions between biobased products within
the proposed designated items that overlap with products containing
recovered material, USDA is requesting from manufacturers and users
product specific information on unique performance attributes,
environmental and human health effects, disposal costs, and other
attributes that would distinguish biobased products from products
containing recovered material, as well as non-biobased products. USDA
will post this information on the FB4P Web site.
2. We are proposing a single item designation for hand cleaners and
sanitizers. We are seeking comment as to whether there are different
performance standards for this item and, if so, whether USDA should
consider either creating subcategories within this item, each with its
own minimum biobased content, or limiting the scope of the current item
and proposing one or more new items for hand cleaners and sanitizers.
In your comments, please be sure to identify specific performance
standards and rationale for either subdividing the current proposed
item or for limiting the scope of the current proposed item and
proposing one or more new items for hand cleaners and sanitizers.
3. We are proposing a single minimum biobased content for the item
insulation foam for wall construction. The proposed minimum biobased
content is based on two measured biobased contents, one for a spray
foam product and one for a rigid foam product. USDA is interested in
receiving comments as to whether USDA should set a minimum biobased
content for spray foam products and one for rigid foam products. Please
be sure to provide your rationale for your comments.
4. We have attempted to identify relevant and appropriate
performance standards and other relevant measures of performance for
each of the proposed items. If you know of other such standards or
relevant measures of performance for the proposed items, USDA requests
that you submit information identifying such standards and measures,
including their name (and other identifying information as necessary),
identifying who is using the standard/measure, and describing the
circumstances under which the product is being used.
5. Many biobased products within the items being proposed for
designation will have positive environmental and human health
attributes. USDA is seeking comments on such attributes in order to
provide additional information on the FB4P Web site. This information
will then be available to Federal procuring agencies and will assist
them in making ``best value'' purchase decisions. When possible, please
provide appropriate documentation to support the environmental and
human health attributes you describe.
To assist you in developing your comments, the background
information used in proposing these items for designation can be found
on the FB4P Web site. All comments should be submitted as directed in
the ADDRESSES section above.
[[Page 47569]]
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
In order to designate items (generic groupings of specific products
such as crankcase oils or products that contain qualifying biobased
fibers) for preferred procurement, section 9002 requires USDA to
consider: (1) The availability of items; and (2) the economic and
technological feasibility of using the items, including the life cycle
costs of the items.
In considering an item's availability, USDA uses several sources of
information. USDA performs Internet searches, contacts trade
associations (such as the Biobased Manufacturers Association) and
commodity groups, searches the Thomas Register (a database, used as a
resource for finding companies and products manufactured in North
America, containing over 173,000 entries), and contacts individual
manufacturers and vendors to identify those manufacturers and vendors
with biobased products within items being considered for designation.
USDA uses the results of these same searches to determine if an item is
generally available.
In considering an item's economic and technological feasibility,
USDA examines evidence pointing to the general commercial use of an
item and its cost and performance characteristics. This information is
obtained from the sources used to assess an item's availability.
Commercial use, in turn, is evidenced by any manufacturer and vendor
information on the availability, relative prices, and performance of
their products as well as by evidence of an item being purchased by a
procuring agency or other entity, where available. In sum, USDA
considers an item economically and technologically feasible for
purposes of designation if products within that item are being offered
and used in the marketplace.
In considering the life cycle costs of items proposed for
designation, USDA uses the BEES analytical tool to test individual
products within each proposed item. (Detailed information on this
analytical tool can be found on the Web site http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/
oae/software/bees.html.) The BEES analytical tool measures the
environmental performance and the economic performance of a product.
Environmental performance is measured in the BEES analytical tool
using the internationally-standardized and science-based life cycle
assessment approach specified in the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14000 standards. The BEES environmental
performance analysis includes human health as one of its components.
All stages in the life of a product are analyzed: Raw material
production; manufacture; transportation; installation; use; and
recycling and waste management. The time period over which
environmental performance is measured begins with raw material
production and ends with disposal (waste management). The BEES
environmental performance analysis also addresses products made from
biobased feedstocks.
Economic performance in the BEES analysis is measured using the
ASTM standard life cycle cost method (ASTM E917), which covers the
costs of initial investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and
repair, and disposal. The time frame for economic performance extends
from the purchase of the product to final disposal.
USDA then utilizes the BEES results of individual products within a
designated item in its consideration of the life cycle costs at the
item level. There is a single unit of comparison associated with each
designated item. The basis for the unit of comparison is the
``functional unit,'' defined so that the products compared are true
substitutes for one another. If significant differences have been
identified in the useful lives of alternative products within a
designated item (e.g., if one product lasts twice as long as another),
the functional unit will include reference to a time dimension to
account for the frequency of product replacement. The functional unit
also will account for products used in different amounts for equivalent
service. For example, one surface coating product may be
environmentally and economically preferable to another on a pound-for-
pound basis, but may require twice the mass to cover one square foot of
surface, and last half as long, as the other product. To account for
these performance differences, the functional unit for the surface
coating item could be ``one square foot of application for 20 years''
instead of ``one pound of surface coating product.'' The functional
unit provides the critical reference point to which all BEES results
for products within an item are scaled. Because functional units vary
from item to item, performance comparisons are valid only among
products within a designated item.
The complete results of the BEES analysis, extrapolated to the item
level, for each item proposed for designation in today's proposed
rulemaking can be found at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
As discussed above, the BEES analysis includes information on the
environmental performance, human health impacts, and economic
performance. In addition, ASTM D7505, which manufacturers may use in
lieu of the BEES analytical tool, provides similar information. USDA is
working with manufacturers and vendors to post this information on the
FB4P Web site before a procuring agency asks for it, in order to make
the preferred procurement program more efficient. As discussed earlier,
USDA has also implemented, or will implement, several other steps
intended to educate the manufacturers and other stakeholders on the
benefits of this program and the need to post this information,
including manufacturer contact information, on the FB4P Web site to
make it available to procurement officials. Additional information on
specific products within the items proposed for designation may also be
obtained directly from the manufacturers of the products.
USDA recognizes that information related to the functional
performance of biobased products is a primary factor in making the
decision to purchase these products. USDA is gathering from
manufacturers of biobased products being considered for designation
information on industry standard test methods that they are using to
evaluate the functional performance of their products. Additional
standards are also being identified during meetings of the Interagency
Council and during the review process for each proposed rule. We have
listed under the detailed discussion of each item proposed for
designation (presented in Section IV.B) the functional performance test
methods identified during the development of this Federal Register
notice for these 10 items. While this process identifies many of the
relevant standards, USDA recognizes that the performance test methods
identified herein do not represent all of the methods that may be
applicable for a designated item or for any individual product within
the designated item. As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is
requesting identification of other relevant performance standards and
measures of performance. As the program becomes fully implemented,
these and other additional relevant performance standards will be
available on the FB4P Web site.
In gathering information relevant to the analyses discussed above,
USDA has made extensive efforts to contact and request information and
product samples from representatives of all known manufacturers of products
[[Page 47570]]
within the items proposed for designation. However, because the
submission of information is on a strictly voluntary basis, USDA was
able to obtain information and samples only from those manufacturers
who were willing voluntarily to invest the resources required to gather
and submit the information and samples. USDA used the samples to test
for biobased content and the information to conduct the BEES analyses.
The data presented are all the data that were submitted in response to
USDA requests for information from all known manufacturers of the
products within the 10 items proposed for designation. While USDA would
prefer to have complete data on the full range of products within each
item, the data that were submitted are sufficient to support
designation of the items in today's proposed rulemaking.
To propose an item for designation, USDA must have sufficient
information on a sufficient number of products within an item to be
able to assess its availability and its economic and technological
feasibility, including its life cycle costs. For some items, there may
be numerous products available. For other items, there may be very few
products currently available. Given the infancy of the market for some
items, it is not unexpected that even single-product items will be
identified. Further, given that the intent of section 9002 is largely
to stimulate the production of new biobased products and to energize
emerging markets for those products, USDA has determined that the
identification of two or more biobased products within an item, or even
a single product with two or more suppliers, is sufficient to consider
the designation of that item. Similarly, the documented availability,
benefits, and life cycle costs of even a very small percentage of all
products that may exist within an item are also considered sufficient
to support designation.
B. Items Proposed for Designation
USDA uses a model (as summarized below) to identify and prioritize
items for designation. Through this model, USDA has identified over 100
items for potential designation under the preferred procurement
program. A list of these items and information on the model can be
accessed on the USDA biobased program Web site at
http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
In general, items are developed and prioritized for designation by
evaluating them against program criteria established by USDA and by
gathering information from other government agencies, private industry
groups, and independent manufacturers. These evaluations begin by
asking the following questions about the products within an item:
? Are they cost competitive with non-biobased products?
? Do they meet industry performance standards?
? Are they readily available on the commercial market?
In addition to these primary concerns, USDA then considers the
following points:
? Are there manufacturers interested in providing the
necessary test information on products within a particular item?
? Are there a number of manufacturers producing biobased
products in this item?
? Are there products available in this item?
? What level of difficulty is expected when designating this item?
? Is there Federal demand for the product?
? Are Federal procurement personnel looking for biobased products?
? Will an item create a high demand for biobased feed stock?
? Does manufacturing of products within this item increase
potential for rural development?
After completing this evaluation, USDA prioritizes the list of
items for designation. USDA then gathers information on products within
the highest priority items and, as sufficient information becomes
available for groups of approximately 10 items, a new rulemaking
package will be developed to designate the items within that group. The
list of items may change, with items being added or dropped, and the
order in which items are proposed for designation is likely to change
because the information necessary to designate an item may take more
time to obtain than an item lower on the list.
In today's proposed rulemaking, USDA is proposing to designate 10
items for the preferred procurement program: Adhesive and mastic
removers; insulating foam for wall construction; hand cleaners and
sanitizers; composite panels; fluid-filled transformers; biodegradable
containers; fertilizers; metalworking fluids; sorbents; and graffiti
and grease removers. USDA has determined that each of these 10 items
meets the necessary statutory requirements--namely, that they are being
produced with biobased products and that their procurement by procuring
agencies will carry out the following objectives of section 9002:
? To increase demand for biobased products, which would in
turn increase demand for agricultural commodities that can serve as
feedstocks for the production of biobased products;
? To spur development of the industrial base through value-
added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities;
and
? To enhance the nation's energy security by substituting
biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural gas.
Further, USDA has sufficient information on these 10 items to determine
their availability and to conduct the requisite analyses to determine
their biobased content and their economic and technological
feasibility, including life cycle costs.
Mature Markets. Section 2902.5(c)(2) of the final guidelines states
that USDA will not designate items for preferred procurement that are
determined to have mature markets. Mature markets are described as
items that had significant national market penetration in 1972. USDA
contacted manufacturers, manufacturing associations, and industry
researchers to determine if, in 1972, biobased products had a
significant market share within any of the items proposed for
designation today. USDA found that biobased products within none of the
10 items proposed for designation today had a significant market share
in 1972 and that, generally, the companies that produce biobased
products within these proposed designated items have been in business
for only 10 to 20 years.
Overlap with EPA-Designated Recovered Content Products. In today's
proposed rule, 4 of the 10 items may overlap with EPA-designated
recovered content products. These four items are: Insulating foam,
composite panels, fertilizers, and sorbents. For these four items, USDA
is requesting that certain information on the qualifying biobased
products be made available by their manufacturers to assist Federal
agencies in determining if an overlap exists between the qualifying
biobased product and the applicable EPA-designated recovered content
product. As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is requesting
information on overlap situations to further help procuring agencies
make informed decisions when faced with purchasing a recovered content
material product or a biobased product. As this information is
developed, USDA will make it available on the FB4P Web site.
Exemptions. When proposing items for preferred procurement under
the FB4P, USDA will identify, on an item-by-item basis, items that
would be exempt from preferred procurement on
[[Page 47571]]
the basis of their use in products and systems designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions. USDA believes it is inappropriate to
apply the biobased purchasing requirement to tactical equipment unless
the Department of Defense has documented that these products can meet
the performance requirements for such equipment and are available in
sufficient supply to meet domestic and overseas deployment needs. After
evaluating these situations for each of the 10 items being proposed for
designation, USDA is proposing to exempt fluid-filled transformers from
preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in combat or combat-
related missions.
USDA is proposing an exemption for all designated items when used
in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment, because failure of
such items could lead to catastrophic consequences. Many, if not all,
items that USDA is or is planning to designate for preferred
procurement are or will be used in space applications. Frequently, such
applications used these items in ways that are different from their
more ``conventional'' use on Earth. It is difficult, if not impossible,
to forecast what situations may occur when these items are used in
space and how they will perform. Therefore, USDA believes is it
reasonable to limit the preferred procurement program to items used in
more conventional applications and is proposing to exempt all
designated items used in space applications from the FB4P.
For each item being proposed for exemption, the exemption does not
extend to contractors performing work for DoD or NASA. For example, if
a contractor is producing a part for use on the space shuttle, the
metalworking fluid the contractor uses to produce the part should be
biobased (provided it meets the specifications for metalworking). The
exemption does apply, however, if the product being purchased by the
contractor is for use in combat or combat-related missions or for use
in space applications. For example, if the part being produced by the
contractor would actually be part of the space shuttle, then the
exemption applies.
Each of the 10 proposed designated items are discussed in the
following sections.
1. Adhesive and Mastic Removers
Adhesive and mastic removers represent that group of industrial
cleaning solvent products formulated for use in removing asbestos,
carpet, and ceramic tile mastics as well as adhesive materials,
including glue, tape, and gum, from various surface types. Products in
this item eliminate the need to sand and grind glue and adhesives from
parts, floors, or walls, significantly reducing the time required on a
project. These products are typically formulated from natural soy-based
or citrus-based feedstocks.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased adhesive and mastic removers, USDA identified 11
different manufacturers producing 13 individual biobased products.
These 11 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of
biobased adhesive and mastic removers, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that each of these products is being used
commercially. Using the procedure described earlier in this notice, no
industry standard performance tests were identified by the
manufacturers who submitted information on these products or others.
USDA contacted procurement officials with various procuring
agencies, including the General Services Administration, several
offices within the Defense Logistics Agency, OFEE, USDA Departmental
Administration, the National Park Service, the EPA, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and OMB, in an effort to gather information on the
purchases of products within the 10 items proposed for designation
today. Communications with these officials lead to the conclusion that
obtaining credible current usage statistics and specific potential
markets within the Federal government for biobased products is not
possible at this time. Most of the contacted officials reported that
procurement data are reported in higher level groupings of materials
and supplies than the proposed designated items. Also, the purchasing
of such materials as part of contracted services and with individual
purchase cards used to purchase products locally further obscures
credible data on purchases of specific products.
USDA also investigated the Web site http://www.fedbizopps.gov,
a site which lists Federal contract purchase opportunities greater than
$25,000. The information provided on this Web site, however, is for
broad categories of products rather than the specific types of products
that are included in today's rulemaking. Therefore, USDA has been
unable to obtain data on the amount of adhesive and mastic removers
purchased by procuring agencies. However, Federal agencies routinely
procure building construction, renovation, cleaning, and repair
services and materials, including adhesive and mastic removers. Thus,
they have a need for adhesive and mastic removers and for services that
require the use of adhesive and mastic removers. Designation of
adhesive and mastic removers 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 adhesive and mastic removers was performed
for two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 1
summarizes the BEES results for the two adhesive and mastic removers.
As seen in Table 1, the environmental performance score, which includes
human health, ranges from 0.0257 to 0.0625 points per gallon. The
environmental performance score indicates the share of annual per
capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to one gallon of
the product, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. For example, the total
amount of criteria air pollutants emitted in the U.S. in one year was
divided by the total U.S. population to derive a ``criteria air
pollutants per person value.'' The production and use of one gallon of
adhesive and mastic remover sample A was estimated to contribute
0.000002 percent of this value.
Table 1.--Summary of BEES Results for Adhesive and Mastic Removers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhesive and mastic
removers
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0257 0.0625
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
[[Page 47572]]
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0002 0.0007
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0052 0.0170
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0015 0.0111
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0110 0.0157
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0035 0.0062
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0025 0.0085
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0011 0.0019
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0007 0.0014
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 15.99 17.66
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 15.99 17.66
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\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.
When evaluating the information presented in Table 1, as well as in
the subsequent tables presented in this preamble, the reader should be
aware that comparisons of the environmental performance scores are
valid only among products within a designated item. Thus, comparisons
of the scores presented in Table 1 and the scores presented in Tables 2
through 10 for other proposed designated items in this preamble are not
meaningful.
The numbers in parentheses following each of the 12 environmental
impacts listed in the tables in this preamble indicate weighting
factors. The weighting factors represent the relative importance of the
12 environmental impacts, including human health impacts, that
contribute to the BEES Environmental Score. They are derived from lists
of the relative importance of these impacts developed by the EPA
Science Advisory Board for the purpose of advising EPA as to how best
to allocate its limited resources among environmental impact areas.
Note that a lower Environmental Performance score is better than a
higher score.
Life cycle costs presented in Tables 1 through 10 in this preamble
are per the appropriate functional unit for the proposed designated
item. The life cycle costs of the submitted adhesive and mastic
removers range from $15.99 to $17.66 (present value dollars) per
gallon. Present value dollars presented in this preamble represent the
sum of all costs associated with a product over a fixed period of time,
including any applicable costs for purchase, installation, replacement,
operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. Present value dollars
presented in this preamble reflect 2005 dollars. Dollars are expressed
in present value terms to adjust for the effects of inflation. Future
costs are discounted to present value using the OMB discount rate of
3.9 percent.
The complete results of the BEES analysis, extrapolated to the item
level, for each item proposed for designation in today's proposed
rulemaking can be found at http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov.
2. Insulating Foam for Wall Construction
Insulating foam for wall construction represents that group of
products designed as spray-in-place insulation systems for residential
or commercial construction applications. Products in this item provide
a sealed thermal barrier, which significantly simplifies construction
and reduces the effort required on a project. Biobased insulating foams
are typically formulated from natural soy-based feedstocks.
Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the EPA-
designated recovered content product: Construction--Building
Insulation.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased insulating foam for wall construction, USDA identified
14 different manufacturers producing 21 individual biobased products.
These 14 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of
biobased insulating foam for wall construction, merely those identified
during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by
these manufacturers indicates that each of these products has been
tested against one or more industry performance standards and is being
used commercially. While other applicable performance standards may
exist, applicable industry performance standards against which these
products have been typically tested, as identified by manufacturers of
products within this item, include:
? ASTM E84-05, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning
Characteristics of Building Materials;
? ASTM C177-04, Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat
Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the
Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus;
? ASTM E283-04, Standard Test Method for Determining Rate of
Air Leakage Through Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors Under
Specified Pressure Differences Across the Specimen;
? ASTM D1622-03, Standard Test Method for Apparent Density
of Rigid Cellular Plastics;
? ASTM E96/E96M-05, Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor
Transmission of Materials;
? ASTM 90-04, Standard Test Method for Laboratory
Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions
and Elements;
? ASTM C423-02a, Standard Test Method for Sound Absorption
and Sound Absorption Coefficients by the Reverberation Room Method;
[[Page 47573]]
? ASTM C518-04, Standard Test Method for Steady-State
Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter
Apparatus; and
? ASTM E84-05e1, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning
Characteristics of Building Materials.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as described in the section on
adhesive and mastic removers. These attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely procure building construction,
renovation, and repair services and materials, including insulating
foam for wall construction. Thus, they have a need for insulating foam
for wall construction and for services that require the use of
insulating foam for wall construction. Designation of insulating foam
for wall construction 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 insulating foam for wall construction was
performed for one of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table
2 summarizes the BEES results for the one sample of insulating foam for
wall construction. As seen in Table 2, the environmental performance
score, which includes human health, was 0.0018 points for a quantity of
material necessary to provide one square foot of insulated wall surface
for a period of 50 years. The environmental performance score indicates
the share of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to the quantity of material necessary to provide one
square foot of insulated wall surface for a period of 50 years,
expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 2.--Summary of BEES Results for Insulating Foam for Wall
Construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insulating
foam for
Parameters wall
construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score \1\........... 0.0018
Acidification (5%)........................................ 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%).............................. 0.0000
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................................. 0.0002
Eutrophication (5%)....................................... 0.0000
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%)................................ 0.0009
Global Warming (16%)...................................... 0.0002
Habitat Alteration (16%).................................. 0.0000
Human Health (11%)........................................ 0.0003
Indoor Air (11%).......................................... 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)...................................... 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................................. 0.0001
Water Intake (3%)......................................... 0.0001
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) \2\............ 1.10
First Cost................................................ 1.15
Future Cost (3.9%) \3\.................................... -0.05
Functional Unit........................................... (\4\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ Note that because this product has a residual (or salvage) value
after its initial use, the future cost is a negative value.
\4\ The quantity of material necessary to provide one square foot of
insulated wall surface for a period of 50 years.
The life cycle cost of the submitted insulating foam for wall
construction was $1.10 (present value dollars) for a quantity of
material necessary to provide one square foot of insulated wall surface
for a period of 50 years.
3. Hand Cleaners and Sanitizers
Hand cleaners and sanitizers represent that group of personal care
products formulated for use in cleaning and sanitizing human hands.
Products in this item, which may be used with or without water, are
used to remove a variety of different soils, greases, and bacteria.
These products significantly reduce the potential for transmitting
harmful bacteria. Biobased hand cleaners and sanitizers are typically
formulated from natural corn, soy, or citrus-based feedstocks.
Procuring agencies should note that, as discussed in section II of
this preamble, not all biobased cleaning products are ``environmentally
preferable'' to non-biobased products. Unless cleaning products have
been formulated to contain no (or reduced levels of) metals and toxic
and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life, the
environment, or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable
cleaning products, Federal agencies must compare the ``cradle-to-
grave'' impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of both biobased
and non-biobased products.
As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is requesting comment on
whether there should be one or more subcategories within this item
based on required performance properties of the item. For example, hand
cleaners and sanitizers used in medical situations might be required to
meet different performance standards from those used in households. If
this is the case, then there may be differences in the level of
biobased content depending on the performance standard to be met. As
proposed, USDA is not differentiating between settings in which hand
cleaners and sanitizers are used.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased hand cleaners and sanitizers, USDA identified 36
different manufacturers producing 73 individual biobased products.
These 36 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of
biobased hand cleaners and sanitizers, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that each of these products has been tested
against one or more industry performance standards and is being used
commercially. While other applicable performance standards may exist,
[[Page 47574]]
applicable industry performance standards against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified by manufacturers of products
within this item, include:
? American Type Culture Collection Number 11229, Organism:
Escherichia coli (Migula) Castellani, and Chalmers; and
? American Type Culture Collection Number 6539 Organism:
Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica (ex Kauffmann and Edwards) Le Minor
and Popoff serovar Typhi; deposited as Salmonella typhi (Schroeter)
Warren and Scott.
Some products within this item may require ``higher'' standards
than other products. For example, hand cleaners and sanitizers used in
hospitals and medical clinics may require higher levels of performance
than those used in typical households. Procuring agencies, therefore,
may need to contact the manufacturer of a biobased product or access
the FB4P Web site to obtain additional information on the performance
specification of a product within this item.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as described in the section on
adhesive and mastic removers. These attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely procure washroom and janitorial
services and materials, including hand cleaners and sanitizers. Thus,
they have a need for hand cleaners and sanitizers and for services that
require the use of hand cleaners and sanitizers. Designation of hand
cleaners and sanitizers 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 hand cleaners and sanitizers was performed
for three of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 3
summarizes the BEES results for the three hand cleaners and sanitizers.
As seen in Table 3, the environmental performance score, which includes
human health, ranges from 0.0227 to 0.0412 points per gallon of hand
cleaner and sanitizer. The environmental performance score indicates
the share of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to one gallon of the product, expressed in 100ths of 1
percent.
Table 3.--Summary of BEES Results for Hand Cleaners and Sanitizers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hand cleaners and sanitizers
Parameters -----------------------------------------
Sample A Sample B Sample C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental 0.0227 0.0347 0.0412
Performance--Total Score \1\.
Acidification (5%)............ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%).. 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004
Ecological Toxicity (11%)..... 0.0112 0.0128 0.0125
Eutrophication (5%)........... 0.0007 0.0034 0.0052
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).... 0.0063 0.0077 0.0102
Global Warming (16%).......... 0.0015 0.0028 0.0047
Habitat Alteration (16%)...... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%)............ 0.0017 0.0053 0.0058
Indoor Air (11%).............. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%).......... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)..................... 0.0008 0.0015 0.0014
Water Intake (3%)............. 0.0004 0.0010 0.0010
Economic Performance (Life 17.02 17.30 21.24
Cycle Costs ($)) \2\.........
First Cost.................... 17.02 17.30 21.24
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.
The life cycle cost of the submitted hand cleaners and sanitizers
range from $17.02 to $21.24 (present value dollars) per gallon.
4. Composite Panels
Composite panels represent that group of engineered products
designed for use in non-structural construction applications, including
wall panels, shelving, decorative panels, lavatory dividers, and
exterior signs. Biobased composite panels are typically formulated from
natural wheat or rice straw, recycled or forest clean-up wood, and
paper industry wastes. This item applies to both interior and exterior
applications. However, some products within this item may not be
applicable to all exterior applications, which may require specific
insulating values and moisture protection properties. Procuring
agencies, therefore, need to assess an individual product's performance
specifications before using in exterior applications.
Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the following
three EPA-designated recovered content product: Construction--Laminated
Paperboard and Structural Foam Board; Construction--Shower and Restroom
Dividers; and Miscellaneous Products--Signage.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased composite panels, USDA identified 26 different
manufacturers producing 51 individual biobased products. These 26
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
composite panels, merely those identified during USDA information
gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers
indicates that each of these products has been tested against one or
more industry performance standards and is being used commercially.
While other applicable performance standards may exist, applicable
industry performance standards against which these products have been
typically tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within
this item, include:
[[Page 47575]]
? ASTM C473-03, Standard Test Methods for Physical Testing
of Gypsum Panel Products;
? ASTM D1037-99, Standard Test Methods for Evaluating
Properties of Wood-Base Fiber and Particle Panel Materials;
? ASTM D3273-00, Standard Test Method for Resistance to Growth of Mold
on the Surface of Interior Coatings in an Environmental Chamber;
? ASTM D4060-01, Standard Test Method for Abrasion
Resistance of Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser;
? ASTM E72-05, Standard Test Methods of Conducting Strength
Tests of Panels for Building Construction;
? ASTM E84-05, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning
Characteristics of Building Materials
? ASTM E90-04, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of
Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions and Elements;
? ASTM E119-00a, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of
Building Construction and Materials; and
? ASTM E413-04, Classification for Rating Sound Insulation.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as described in the section on
adhesive and mastic removers. These attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely procure building construction,
renovation, and repair services and materials, including composite
panels. Thus, they have a need for composite panels and for services
that require the use of composite panels. Designation of composite
panels 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 composite panels was performed for two of
the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 4 summarizes the
BEES results for the two composite panels. As seen in Table 4, the
environmental performance score, which includes human health, ranges
from 0.0085 to 0.0113 points per square foot of partition for a period
of 50 years. The environmental performance score indicates the share of
annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to
one square foot of partition for a period of 50 years, expressed in
100ths of 1 percent.
Table 4.--Summary of BEES Results for Composite Panels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composite panels
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0085 0.0113
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0001 0.0001
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0004 0.0010
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0001 0.0001
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0044 0.0055
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0012 0.0016
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0017 0.0026
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0004 0.0004
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0002 0.0000
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2.37 4.96
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 2.37 4.96
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. one square foot of
partition over 50 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted composite panels range from
$2.37 to $4.96 (present value dollars) per square foot of partition for
a period of 50 years.
5. Fluid-Filled Transformers
Fluid-filled transformers represent that group of electric power
transformers designed to utilize a dielectric (non-conducting) fluid as
a means of insulating and cooling the electro-mechanical equipment
inside the transformer.
The electro-mechanical components of a fluid-filled transformer are
the same between fluid-filled transformers, with only the type of fluid
varying. The dielectric fluid used in fluid-filled transformers is the
only component that is a biobased material. Therefore, the information
presented in this preamble is based on analyses performed on biobased
transformer fluids. However, USDA is proposing to designate the item as
``fluid-filled transformers,'' because end users generally purchase
ready-to-use transformers rather than purchasing the electro-mechanical
components separately from the fluid. Biobased transformer fluids are
typically formulated from vegetable oils, such as soybean oil.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
products and systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related
missions and in spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
USDA identified 5 different manufacturers producing 12 individual
biobased products that are used as transformer fluids in fluid-filled
transformers. These five manufacturers do not necessarily include all
manufacturers of biobased transformer fluids, merely those identified
during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by
these manufacturers indicates that each of these products has been
tested against one or more industry performance standards and is being
used commercially. While other applicable performance standards may
exist, applicable industry performance
[[Page 47576]]
standards against which these products have been typically tested, as
identified by manufacturers of products within this item, include:
? ASTM D287-92 (2000) e1, Standard Test Method for API
Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Hydrometer Method);
? ASTM D2882-00, Standard Test Method for Indicating the
Wear Characteristics of Petroleum and Non-Petroleum Hydraulic Fluids in
Constant Volume Vane Pump (Withdrawn 2003);
? American Petroleum Institute API GL-3, Lubricant with
light EP effect for transmissions and non-hypoid gear drives;
? General Motors GM LS-2, General Motors Maintenance
Lubricant Standard LS-2 for Industrial Equipment and Machine Tools;
? German Institute for Standardization DIN51524, Pressure fluids;
hydraulic oils; HL, HLP, and HVLP hydraulic oils; minimum requirements.
? ASTM D1816, Standard Test Method for Dielectric Breakdown
Voltage of Insulating Oils of Petroleum Origin Using VDE Electrodes;
? ASTM D877-02e1, Standard Test Method for Dielectric
Breakdown Voltage of Insulating Liquids Using Disk Electrodes;
? ASTM D924-04, Standard Test Method for Dissipation Factor
(or Power Factor) and Relative Permittivity (Dielectric Constant) of
Electrical Insulating Liquids;
? ASTM D1169-02, Standard Test Method for Specific
Resistance (Resistivity) of Electrical Insulating Liquids;
? ASTM D3300-00, Standard Test Method for Dielectric
Breakdown Voltage of Insulating Oils of Petroleum Origin Under Impulse
Conditions;
? ASTM D2300-00, Standard Test Method for Gassing of
Insulating Liquids Under Electrical Stress and Ionization (Modified
Pirelli Method);
? ASTM D1298-99 (2005), Standard Test Method for Density,
Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum
and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method;
? ASTM D971-99a (2004), Standard Test Method for Interfacial
Tension of Oil Against Water by the Ring Method;
? EPA 9045C, Corrosivity and pH Determination;
? ASTM D974-04, Standard Test Method for Acid and Base
Number by Color-Indicator Titration;
? ASTM D445-04e2, Standard Test Method for Kinematic
Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of
Dynamic Viscosity);
? ASTM 1533B, Water in Insulating Fluids;
? CPS Method, Percent Saturation of Moisture;
? ASTM D2779-92 (2002), Standard Test Method for Estimation
of Solubility of Gases in Petroleum Liquids;
? ASTM D1524-94 (2004), Standard Test Method for Visual
Examination of Used Electrical Insulating Oils of Petroleum Origin in
the Field;
? ASTM D1500-04a, Standard Test Method for ASTM Color of
Petroleum Products (ASTM Color Scale);
? ASTM D93-02a, Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point by
Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester;
? ASTM D92-05a, Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire
Points by Cleveland Open Cup Tester;
? ASTM D97-05a, Standard Test Method for Pour Point of
Petroleum Products;
? ASTM D2766-95 (2005), Standard Test Method for Specific
Heat of Liquids and Solids;
? ASTM E1269-05 Standard Test Method for Determining
Specific Heat Capacity by Differential Scanning Calorimetry;
? APHA SM 5210B, (APHA = American Public Health Association)
? Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD);
? EPA OPPTS 835.3100, Fate, Transport, and Transformation
Test Guidelines for Aerobic Aquatic Biodegradation and Anaerobic
Biodegradability of Organic Chemicals; and
? OECD G.L 203, Acute Toxicity Test (Trout Fry).
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as described in the section on
adhesive and mastic removers. These attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, many Federal facilities utilize, or contract for services that
utilize, transformers as part of their electrical distribution systems.
Thus, Federal agencies have a need for fluid-filled transformers and
for services that require the use of fluid-filled transformers.
Designation of fluid-filled transformers 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 transformer fluids was performed for two
of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 5 summarizes the
BEES results for the two biobased transformer fluids. As seen in Table
5, the environmental performance score, which includes human health,
ranges from 0.0198 to 0.0581 points per gallon of the transformer
fluids. The environmental performance score indicates the share of
annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to 1
gallon of transformer fluid, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 5.--Summary of BEES Results for Fluid-Filled Transformers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transformer fluids
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0198 0.0581
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0002 0.0003
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0046 0.0204
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0007 0.0066
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0066 0.0130
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0033 0.0052
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0029 0.0047
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0007 0.0040
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0008 0.0039
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 8.50 9.10
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 8.50 9.10
[[Page 47577]]
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\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.
The life cycle cost of the submitted biobased transformer fluids
range from $8.50 to $9.10 (present value dollars) per gallon of
transformer fluid.
6. Biodegradable Containers
Biodegradable containers represent that group of products capable
of complying with the specifications established in the
biodegradability standard ASTM D6400 ``Standard Specifications for
Compostable Plastics'' and designed to be used for temporary storage or
transportation of materials, such as food items. Products in this item
are typically used by quick-serve restaurants, food management
companies, universities, and government organizations. Biobased
biodegradable containers are typically produced from natural starch-
based or synthetic corn-based feedstocks and are readily biodegradable
through composting.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased biodegradable containers, USDA identified four
different manufacturers producing six individual biobased products.
These four manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers
of biobased biodegradable containers, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that each of these products has been tested
against one or more industry performance standards and is being used
commercially. While other applicable performance standards may exist,
applicable industry performance standards against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified by manufacturers of products
within this item, include:
? ASTM D6400-04, Standard Specification for Compostable Plastics; and
? Biodegradable Products Institute Certified Compostable
plastic products will biodegrade and compost satisfactorily in actively
managed compost facilities.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as described in the section on
adhesive and mastic removers. These attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely perform, or procure contract
services to perform, activities such as food preparation and materials
storage that utilize containers. Thus, they have a need for containers
and for services that require the use of containers. Designation of
biodegradable containers will promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased biodegradable containers was performed for
two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 6 summarizes
the BEES results for the two biodegradable containers. As seen in Table
6, the environmental performance score, which includes human health,
ranges from 0.0003 to 0.0008 points per biodegradable container. The
environmental performance score indicates the share of annual per
capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to one
biodegradable container, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 6.--Summary of BEES Results for Biodegradable Containers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biodegradable containers
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0003 0.0008
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0002 0.0001
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0001 0.0004
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0000 0.0001
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0000 0.0001
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0000 0.0000
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0000 0.0001
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 0.05 0.10
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 0.05 0.10
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. 1 biodegradable container.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
[[Page 47578]]
The life cycle cost of the submitted biodegradable containers range
from $0.05 to $0.10 (present value dollars) per biodegradable container.
7. Fertilizers
Fertilizers represent that group of products formulated or
processed for use in soil improvement applications. Products in this
item provide moisture holding capacity, nutrients for plant growth,
and/or beneficial bacteria to convert nutrients into plant usable
forms. These products are used to provide added nutrition to the sports
turf, golf course, organic farming, horticulture, lawn care, landscape,
and nursery industries. Biobased fertilizers are typically produced
from natural agricultural waste feedstocks such as meat and poultry by-
products, animal wastes, grocery scraps, restaurant grease, and bakery
wastes.
Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the EPA-
designated recovered content product: Fertilizers Made From Recovered
Organic Materials.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased fertilizers, USDA identified 15 different
manufacturers producing 30 individual biobased products. These 15
manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased
fertilizers, merely those identified during USDA information gathering
activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that
each of these products has been tested against one or more industry
performance standards and is being used commercially. While other
applicable performance standards may exist, applicable industry
performance standards against which these products have been typically
tested, as identified by manufacturers of products within this item,
include:
? Organic Materials Review Institute, listed seal assures
the stability of a product for certified organic production, handling,
and processing; and
? United States Composting Council Seal of Testing Assurance.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as described in the section on
adhesive and mastic removers. These attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely perform, or procure contract
services to perform, activities such as landscape maintenance and the
production of agricultural products that require the use of
fertilizers. Thus, they have a need for fertilizers and for services
that require the use of fertilizers. Designation of fertilizers 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 fertilizers was performed for two of the
products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 7 summarizes the BEES
results for the two fertilizers. As seen in Table 7, the environmental
performance score, which includes human health, ranges from 0.3299 to
0.9576 points per the quantity of fertilizer recommended for 1 acre
over 3 years of use. The environmental performance score indicates the
share of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to the quantity of fertilizer recommended for 1 acre over
3 years of use, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 7.--Summary of BEES Results for Fertilizers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fertilizers
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.3299 0.9576
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0020 0.0039
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0212 0.1754
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0061 0.0407
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.1455 0.1203
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0493 0.4941
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0809 0.0753
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0249 0.0221
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0000 0.0258
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 17.64 195.43
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 17.64 132.00
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... 0.00 63.43
Functional Unit............................. (\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ The quantity of fertilizer recommended for 1 acre over 3 years of use.
The life cycle cost of the submitted fertilizers range from $17.64
to $195.43 (present value dollars) for the quantity of fertilizer
recommended for 1 acre over 3 years of use.
8. Metalworking Fluids
Metalworking fluids represent that group of products formulated to
provide cooling, lubrication, and corrosion prevention when applied to
metal feedstock during operations such as grinding and machining. These
products are designed for continuous use in systems that re-circulate
the fluid through the use of a reservoir. These products are typically
formulated from vegetable seed oils and are sold as concentrates
designed to be diluted with water or other solvents prior to application.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased metalworking fluids, USDA identified 16 different
manufacturers producing 45 individual
[[Page 47579]]
biobased products. These 16 manufacturers do not necessarily include
all manufacturers of biobased metalworking fluids, merely those
identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information
supplied by these manufacturers indicates that each of these products
has been tested against one or more industry performance standards and
is being used commercially. While other applicable performance
standards may exist, applicable industry performance standards and
other relevant measurements of performance against which these products
have been typically tested, as identified by manufacturers of products
within this item, include:
? ASTM D3233-93 (2003), Standard Test Methods for
Measurement of Extreme Pressure Properties of Fluid Lubricants (Falex
Pin and Vee Block Methods);
? ASTM D3946-92 (1997), Standard Test Method for Evaluating
the Bacteria Resistance of Water-Dilutable Metalworking Fluids
(Withdrawn 2004); and
? Readily Biodegradable EPA 560/6-82-003, monitors the
conversion of the test material carbon to carbon dioxide, the product
must biodegrade in 28 days to pass.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as described in the section on
adhesive and mastic removers. These attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely own and operate fabrication and
repair facilities that utilize the types of metal machining equipment
that require the use of metalworking fluids. In addition, many Federal
agencies contract for services involving the use of such facilities and
equipment. Thus, they have a need for metalworking fluids and for
services that require the use of metalworking fluids. Designation of
metalworking fluids will promote the use of biobased products,
furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the
life cycle costs of biobased metalworking fluids was performed for two
of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 8 summarizes the
BEES results for the two biobased metalworking fluids. As seen in Table
8, the environmental performance score, which includes human health,
ranges from 0.0018 to 0.0036 points per gallon of diluted and ready to
use fluid. The environmental performance score indicates the share of
annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to
one diluted and ready to use gallon of fluid, expressed in 100ths of 1
percent.
Table 8.--Summary of BEES Results for Metalworking Fluids
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metalworking fluids
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0018 0.0036
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0004 0.0026
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0001 0.0001
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0008 0.0002
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0002 0.0002
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0002 0.0001
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0001 0.0000
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0000 0.0004
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 0.72 0.96
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 0.72 0.96
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. One diluted and ready to
use gallon of fluid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
The life cycle cost of the submitted metalworking fluids range from
$0.72 to $0.96 (present value dollars) per gallon of diluted and ready
to use fluid.
9. Sorbents
Sorbents represent that group of materials formulated for clean up
and bioremediation of oil and chemical spills, disposal of liquid
materials, and prevention of leakage or leaching in maintenance
applications, shop floors, and fuel storage areas. Products in this
item are normally light in weight, produce little dust, and provide
absorbing capabilities through wicking or sponge-like action. Biobased
sorbents are typically produced from corncobs, cotton fibers, nut pith
and other plant fiber, often combined with gelling agents.
Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the EPA-
designated recovered content product: Miscellaneous--Sorbents.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased sorbents, USDA identified 16 different manufacturers
producing 31 individual biobased products. These 16 manufacturers do
not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased sorbents, merely
those identified during USDA information gathering activities.
Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that each of
these products has been tested against one or more industry performance
standards and is being used commercially. While other applicable
performance standards may exist, applicable industry performance standards
against which these products have been typically tested, as identified
[[Page 47580]]
by manufacturers of products within this item, include:
? ASTM D726-94 (2003), Standard Test Method for Resistance
of Nonporous Paper to Passage of Air;
? ASTM D2974-00, Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash,
and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils; and
? Canadian General Standards Board CAN/CGSB-183.94, Method
for Testing Sorbents.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as described in the section on
adhesive and mastic removers. These attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely perform, or procure services that
perform, the types of clean-up and containment activities that would
utilize sorbents. Thus, they have a need for sorbents and for services
that require the use of sorbents. Designation of sorbents 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 sorbents was performed for two of the products
using the BEES analytical tool. Table 9 summarizes the BEES results for
the two sorbents. As seen in Table 9, the environmental performance
score, which includes human health, ranges from 0.0957 to 0.1159 points
per the quantity of the analyzed sorbent required to absorb 1 barrel of
light crude oil. The environmental performance score indicates the
share of annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is
attributable to the quantity of the analyzed sorbent required to absorb
1 barrel of light crude oil, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent.
Table 9.--Summary of BEES Results for Sorbents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorbents
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0957 0.1159
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0001 0.0014
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0006 0.0113
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0040 0.0018
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%)................. 0.0059 0.0583
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0026 0.0156
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0020 0.0221
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0024 0.0033
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0781 0.0021
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 49.94 11.83
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 49.94 11.83
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\3\) (\3\)
Functional Unit............................. (\4\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor.
\2\ Costs are per functional unit.
\3\ For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability
differences were identified among competing alternative products.
Therefore, future costs were not calculated.
\4\ The quantity of the analyzed sorbent required to absorb 1 barrel of
light crude oil.
The life cycle cost of the submitted sorbents range from $11.83 to
$49.94 (present value dollars) per the quantity of the analyzed sorbent
required to absorb 1 barrel of light crude oil.
10. Graffiti and Grease Removers
Graffiti and grease removers represent that group of industrial
solvent products formulated to remove automotive, industrial, and
kitchen soils and oils, including grease, paint, and other coatings,
from hard surfaces. Biobased grease and graffiti removers are typically
formulated from natural soy, corn, or citrus-based feedstocks and
contain little to no hazardous ingredients.
For the reasons cited earlier in this notice, USDA is proposing to
exempt this item from preferred procurement under the FB4P when used in
spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
For biobased graffiti and grease removers, USDA identified 26
different manufacturers producing 44 individual biobased products.
These 26 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of
biobased graffiti and grease removers, merely those identified during
USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these
manufacturers indicates that each of these products is being used
commercially. While applicable performance standards and other measures
of performance may exist, relevant measures of performance against
which these products have been typically tested, as identified by
manufacturers of products within this item, include:
? Graffiti Performance Testing; and
? Adhesive Testing in Screen-printing.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased
products within the Federal government as described in the section on
adhesive and mastic removers. These attempts were largely unsuccessful.
However, Federal agencies routinely perform, and procure services that
perform, the types of clean-up activities that would utilize graffiti
and grease removers. Thus, they have a need for graffiti and grease
removers and for services that require the use of graffiti and grease
removers. Designation of graffiti and grease removers 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 graffiti and grease removers was performed
for two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. Table 10
summarizes the BEES results for the two graffiti and grease removers.
As seen in Table 10, the environmental performance score, which
includes human health, ranges from 0.0446 to 0.0646 points per gallon
of the graffiti and grease removers. The environmental performance
score indicates the share of
[[Page 47581]]
annual per capita U.S. environmental impacts that is attributable to
one gallon of the graffiti and grease removers, expressed in 100ths of
1 percent.
Table 10.--Summary of BEES Results for Graffiti and Grease Removers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graffiti and grease
removers
Parameters ---------------------------
Sample A Sample B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEES Environmental Performance--Total Score 0.0446 0.0646
\1\........................................
Acidification (5%).......................... 0.0000 0.0000
Criteria Air Pollutants (6%)................ 0.0003 0.0007
Ecological Toxicity (11%)................... 0.0039 0.0172
Eutrophication (5%)......................... 0.0012 0.0112
Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%).................. 0.0268 0.0168
Global Warming (16%)........................ 0.0043 0.0064
Habitat Alteration (16%).................... 0.0000 0.0000
Human Health (11%).......................... 0.0045 0.0089
Indoor Air (11%)............................ 0.0000 0.0000
Ozone Depletion (5%)........................ 0.0000 0.0000
Smog (6%)................................... 0.0032 0.0021
Water Intake (3%)........................... 0.0004 0.0013
Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 22.16 22.00
\2\........................................
First Cost.................................. 22.16 22.00
Future Cost (3.9%).......................... (\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.
The life cycle cost of the submitted graffiti and grease removers
range from $22.00 to $22.16 (present value dollars) per gallon of
graffiti and grease removers.
C. Minimum Biobased Contents
Section 9002(e)(1)(C) directs USDA to recommend minimum biobased
content levels where appropriate. In today's proposed rulemaking, USDA
is proposing minimum biobased product content for each of the 10 items
proposed for designation based on information currently available to USDA.
As discussed in Section IV.A of this preamble, USDA relied entirely
on manufacturers' voluntary submission of samples to support the
proposed designation of these 10 items. The data presented in the
following paragraphs are the test results from all of the product
samples that were submitted for analysis. It is the responsibility of
the manufacturers to ``self-certify'' that each product being offered
as a biobased product for preferred procurement contains qualifying
feedstock. As contained in the Guidelines, USDA will consider
qualifying feedstocks for biobased products originating in ``designated
countries'' (as that term is defined in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) 25.003)) as well as from the United States. USDA will
develop a monitoring process for these self-certifications to ensure
manufacturers are using qualifying feedstocks. If misrepresentations
are found, USDA will remove the subject biobased product from the
preferred procurement program and may take further actions as deemed
appropriate.
As a result of public comments received on the first designated
items rulemaking proposal, USDA decided to account for the slight
imprecision in the analytical method used to determine biobased content
of products when establishing the minimum biobased content. Thus,
rather than establishing the minimum biobased content for an item at
the tested biobased content of the product selected as the basis for
the minimum value, USDA is establishing the minimum biobased content at
a level 3 percentage points less than the tested value. USDA believes
that this adjustment is appropriate to account for the expected
variations in analytical results.
USDA has determined that setting a minimum biobased content for
designated items is appropriate. Establishing a minimum biobased
content will encourage competition among manufacturers to develop
products with higher biobased contents and will prevent products with
de minimus biobased content from being purchased as a means of
satisfying the requirements of section 9002. USDA believes that it is
in the best interest of the preferred procurement program for minimum
biobased contents to be set at levels that will realistically allow
products to possess the necessary performance attributes and allow them
to compete with non-biobased products in performance and economics.
Setting the minimum biobased content for an item at a level met by
several of the tested products will provide more products from which
procurement officials may choose, will encourage the most widespread
usage of biobased products by procuring agencies, and is expected to
accomplish the objectives of section 9002. Procuring agencies are
encouraged to seek products with the highest biobased content that is
practicable in all 10 of the proposed designated items.
The following paragraphs summarize the information that USDA used
to propose minimum biobased contents within each proposed designated item.
1. Adhesive and Mastic Removers
Five of the 13 biobased adhesive and mastic removers identified
have been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866.\1\ The biobased
content of these 5 samples ranged from 61 percent to 99 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM D6866 (Standard Test Methods for Determining the
Biobased Content of Natural Range Materials Using Radiocarbon and
Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry Analysis) is used to distinguish
between carbon from fossil resources (non-biobased carbon) and
carbon from renewable sources (biobased carbon). The biobased content is
expressed as the percentage of total carbon that is biobased carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 58 percent, based on the product with
[[Page 47582]]
a biobased content of 61 percent. No industry standard performance
tests have been identified for this item. Thus, although all products
within this item perform essentially the same function, the performance
of any individual product or the range of adhesive and mastic
formulations that exist is unknown. Because USDA does not have
performance information to determine whether the products with biobased
contents on the lower end of the range have unique or more desirable
characteristics, USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content
at a level that will include all of the products sampled. USDA believes
that it is in the best interest of the preferred procurement program
for minimum biobased contents to be set at levels that will
realistically allow products to possess the necessary performance
attributes and allow them to compete with non-biobased products in
performance and economics. Furthermore, setting the minimum biobased
content level based on the lowest level found among the sampled
products will offer procuring agencies more choices in selecting
products to purchase and will encourage the most widespread usage of
biobased products by procuring agencies.
2. Insulating Foam for Wall Construction
Two of the 21 identified biobased insulating foam for wall
construction products have been tested for biobased content using ASTM
D6866. The biobased content of these two products were 11 and 65 percent.
USDA is proposing to set a minimum biobased content of 8 percent
for this item, based on the product with a biobased content of 11
percent. The two products sampled provide insulating foam in two
different manners. One is a ``spray in place'' foam and the other is a
foam board. USDA believes that both products should be included in the
preferred procurement program and, therefore, is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content at a level that will include both of the
products sampled. USDA believes that it is in the best interest of the
preferred procurement program for minimum biobased contents to be set
at levels that will realistically allow products to possess the
necessary performance attributes and allow them to compete with non-
biobased products in performance and economics. USDA also believes that
setting a minimum biobased content of 8 percent for this item is
reasonable given that only two samples were tested, and that the
alternative of basing the minimum biobased content on the 65 percent
product could result in unforeseen limitations to the use of ``spray in
place'' insulating foam. Lastly, setting the minimum biobased content
level based on the lowest level found among the sampled products will
offer procuring agencies more choices in selecting products to purchase
and will encourage the most widespread usage of biobased products by
procuring agencies.
3. Hand Cleaners and Sanitizers
Sixteen of the 73 biobased hand cleaners and sanitizers identified
have been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased
content of these 16 hand cleaners and sanitizers ranged from 21 percent
to 95 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 18 percent, based on the product with a biobased content of 21
percent. Hand cleaners and sanitizers are formulated to meet a wide
range of demands. Some are designed specifically to be used without
water, while others are to be used with water; some are liquids and
others are gels; some contain pumice, while others may contain
moisturizers; and some are intended for use in health care facilities,
while others are formulated to remove grease or similar substances.
Because of this range in product characteristics, USDA is proposing to
set the minimum biobased content at a level that will include all of
the products sampled. USDA believes that it is in the best interest of
the preferred procurement program for minimum biobased contents to be
set at levels that will realistically allow products to possess the
necessary performance attributes and allow them to compete with non-
biobased products in performance and economics. Furthermore, setting
the minimum biobased content level based on the lowest level found
among the sampled products will offer procuring agencies more choices
in selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most
widespread usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
4. Composite Panels
Eight of the 51 biobased composite panels identified have been
tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased content of
these 8 composite panels ranged from 29 percent to 100 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 26 percent, based on the product with a biobased content of 29
percent. Composite panels are manufactured to meet a range of demands
and may be formulated to meet specific applications. Because of this
range in product characteristics, USDA is proposing to set the minimum
biobased content at a level that will include all of the products
sampled. USDA believes that it is in the best interest of the preferred
procurement program for minimum biobased contents to be set at levels
that will realistically allow products to possess the necessary
performance attributes and allow them to compete with non-biobased
products in performance and economics. Furthermore, setting the minimum
biobased content level based on the lowest level found among the
sampled products will offer procuring agencies more choices in
selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most widespread
usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
5. Fluid-Filled Transformers
Two of the 12 identified biobased fluids designed for use in fluid-
filled transformers have been tested for biobased content using ASTM
D6866. The biobased content of these two biobased fluids were 69
percent and 98 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 66 percent, based on the product with a biobased content of 69
percent. USDA believes that it is in the best interest of the preferred
procurement program for minimum biobased contents to be set at levels
that will realistically allow products to possess the necessary
performance attributes and allow them to compete with non-biobased
products in performance and economics. USDA also believes that setting
a minimum biobased content of 66 percent for this item is reasonable
given that only two samples were tested, and that the alternative of
basing the minimum biobased content on the 98 percent product could
result in unforeseen limitations to the use of biobased fluid-filled
transformers. Lastly, setting the minimum biobased content level based
on the lowest level found among the sampled products will offer
procuring agencies more choices in selecting products to purchase and
will encourage the most widespread usage of biobased products by
procuring agencies.
6. Biodegradable Containers
Two of the six available biobased biodegradable containers have
been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased content
of these two biodegradable container were 99 percent and 100 percent.
[[Page 47583]]
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 96 percent, based on the product with a biobased content of 99
percent. USDA believes that the slight difference between the biobased
content of two products tested is insignificant, and establishing the
minimum biobased content for the item based on the lower tested value
offers procurement agents more choice in selecting products to purchase.
7. Fertilizers
Ten of the 30 biobased fertilizers identified have been tested for
biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased content of these 10
biobased fertilizers ranged from 74 percent to 100 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 71 percent, based on the product with a biobased content of 74
percent. Fertilizers are designed to address a range of parameters,
including, application method, nutrients contents, release rate of
nutrients, soil types, crop types, and desired re-application
intervals. Because of this range in product characteristics, USDA is
proposing to set the minimum biobased content at a level that will
include all of the products sampled. USDA believes that it is in the
best interest of the preferred procurement program for minimum biobased
contents to be set at levels that will realistically allow products to
possess the necessary performance attributes and allow them to compete
with non-biobased products in performance and economics. Furthermore,
setting the minimum biobased content level based on the lowest level
found among the sampled products will offer procuring agencies more
choices in selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most
widespread usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
8. Metalworking Fluids
Seventeen of the 45 biobased metalworking fluids identified have
been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased content
of these 17 biobased metalworking fluids ranged from 43 percent to 100
percent. Because biobased metalworking fluids are typically sold as
concentrates to be diluted with either water or petroleum-based
solvents before use, the biobased content of the fluids must be
determined before dilution.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 40 percent, based on the product with a biobased content of 43
percent. The conditions under which metalworking fluids must perform
are widely varied. Different types of machining operations and
different metal feedstocks require different characteristics in the
associated metalworking fluids. In some operations the ability to
dissipate heat may be the most critical characteristic, while in others
corrosion prevention may be most important. The ability of a
metalworking fluid to be diluted with water is desirable in many
situations, but may not be significant in others. Because of this range
in product characteristics, USDA is proposing to set the minimum
biobased content at a level that will include all of the products
sampled. USDA believes that it is in the best interest of the preferred
procurement program for minimum biobased contents to be set at levels
that will realistically allow products to possess the necessary
performance attributes and allow them to compete with non-biobased
products in performance and economics. Furthermore, setting the minimum
biobased content level based on the lowest level found among the
sampled products will offer procuring agencies more choices in
selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most widespread
usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
9. Sorbents
Seven of the 31 biobased sorbents identified have been tested for
biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased content of these seven
biobased sorbents ranged from 55 percent to 100 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 52 percent, based on the product with a biobased content of 55
percent. Sorbents are used to absorb a variety of liquid materials and
the sorbent formulation affects the absorbency of the sorbent. Because
of this range in product characteristics, USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content at a level that will include all of the
products sampled. USDA believes that it is in the best interest of the
preferred procurement program for minimum biobased contents to be set
at levels that will realistically allow products to possess the
necessary performance attributes and allow them to compete with non-
biobased products in performance and economics. Furthermore, setting
the minimum biobased content level based on the lowest level found
among the sampled products will offer procuring agencies more choices
in selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most
widespread usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
10. Graffiti and Grease Removers
Eleven of the 44 biobased graffiti and grease removers identified
have been tested for biobased content using ASTM D6866. The biobased
content of these 11 biobased graffiti and grease removers ranged from
24 percent to 100 percent.
USDA is proposing to set the minimum biobased content for this item
at 21 percent, based on the product with a biobased content of 24
percent. Graffiti and grease removers are formulated to remove a wide
variety of paints and other marking materials, as well as grease, from
many types of surfaces and using several different application
techniques. For example, some graffiti and grease removers are sold as
concentrates to be mixed with water, while others are designed to be
used as purchased; some are designed to be sprayed on with power
washers, while others are designed to be applied with brushes; and some
are designed to provide a foaming action, while others are not. Because
of this range in product characteristics, USDA is proposing to set the
minimum biobased content at a level that will include all of the
products sampled. USDA believes that it is in the best interest of the
preferred procurement program for minimum biobased contents to be set
at levels that will realistically allow products to possess the
necessary performance attributes and allow them to compete with non-
biobased products in performance and economics. Furthermore, setting
the minimum biobased content level based on the lowest level found
among the sampled products will offer procuring agencies more choices
in selecting products to purchase and will encourage the most
widespread usage of biobased products by procuring agencies.
D. Effective Date for Procurement Preference and Incorporation Into
Specifications
USDA intends for the final rule to take effect thirty (30) days
after publication of the final rule. However, under the terms of the
proposed rule, procuring agencies would have a one-year transition
period, starting from the date of publication of the final rule, before
the procurement preference for biobased products within a designated
item would take effect.
USDA proposes a one-year period before the procurement preferences
would take effect based on an understanding that Federal agencies will
need time to incorporate the preferences into procurement documents and
to revise existing standardized specifications. Section
[[Page 47584]]
9002(d) of FSRIA and section 2902(c) of 7 CFR part 2902 explicitly
acknowledge the latter need for Federal agencies to have sufficient
time to revise the affected specifications to give preference to
biobased products when purchasing the designated items. Procuring
agencies will need time to evaluate the economic and technological
feasibility of the available biobased products for their agency-
specific uses and for compliance with agency-specific requirements,
including manufacturers' warranties for machinery in which the biobased
products would be used.
By the time these items are promulgated for designation, Federal
agencies will have had a minimum of 18 months (from when these
designated items were proposed), and much longer considering when the
Guidelines were first proposed and these requirements were first laid
out, to implement these requirements.
For these reasons, USDA proposes that the mandatory preference for
biobased products under the designated items take effect one year after
promulgation of the final rule. The one-year period provides these
agencies with ample time to evaluate the economic and technological
feasibility of biobased products for a specific use and to revise the
specifications accordingly. However, some agencies may be able to
complete these processes more expeditiously, and not all uses will
require extensive analysis or revision of existing specifications.
Although it is allowing up to one year, USDA encourages procuring
agencies to implement the procurement preferences as early as
practicable for procurement actions involving any of the designated items.
V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information on These USDA-Designated Items?
Once the item designations in today's proposal become final,
manufacturers and vendors voluntarily may post information on specific
products, including product and contact information, on the USDA
biobased products Web site http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov. USDA will
periodically audit the information displayed on the Web site and, where
questions arise, contact the manufacturer or vendor to verify, correct,
or remove incorrect or out-of-date information. Procuring agencies
should contact the manufacturers and vendors directly to discuss
specific needs and to obtain detailed information on the availability
and prices of biobased products meeting those needs.
By accessing the Web site, agencies will also be able to obtain the
voluntarily-posted information on each product concerning: Relative
price; life cycle costs; hot links directly to a manufacturer's or
vendor's Web site (if available); performance standards (industry,
government, military, ASTM/ISO) that the product has been tested
against; and environmental and public health information from the BEES
analysis or the alternative analysis embedded in the ASTM Standard
D7075, ``Standard Practice for Evaluating and Reporting Environmental
Performance of Biobased Products.''
USDA has linked its Web site to DoD's list of specifications and
standards, which can be used as guidance when procuring products. To
access this list, go to USDA's FB4P Web site and click on the ``Product
Submission'' tab and look for the DoD Specifications link.
VI. Regulatory Information
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant.'' The Order defines a ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
``(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.''
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866. The
annual economic effect associated with today's proposed rule has not
been quantified because the information necessary to estimate the
effect does not exist. As was discussed earlier in this preamble, USDA
made extensive efforts to obtain information on the Federal agencies'
usage of the 10 items proposed for designation. These efforts were
largely unsuccessful. Therefore, attempts to determine the economic
impacts of today's proposed rule would necessitate estimating the
anticipated market penetration of biobased products, which would entail
many assumptions and, thus, be of questionable value. Also, the program
allows procuring agencies the option of not purchasing biobased
products if the costs are deemed ``unreasonable.'' Under this program,
the determination of ``unreasonable'' costs will be made by individual
agencies. USDA knows these agencies will consider such factors as
price, life-cycle costs, and environmental benefits in determining
whether the cost of a biobased product is determined to be
``reasonable'' or ``unreasonable.'' However, until the program is
actually implemented by the various agencies, it is impossible to
quantify the impact this option would have on the economic effect of
the rule. Therefore, USDA relied on a qualitative assessment to reach
the judgment that the annual economic effect of the designation of
these 10 items is less than $100 million, and likely to be
substantially less than $100 million. This judgment was based primarily
on the offsetting nature of the program (an increase in biobased
products purchased with a corresponding decrease in petroleum products
purchased) and, secondarily, on the ability of procuring agencies not
to purchase these items if costs are judged unreasonable, which would
reduce the economic effect.
1. Summary of Impacts
Today's proposed rulemaking is expected to have both positive and
negative impacts to individual businesses, including small businesses.
USDA anticipates that the biobased preferred procurement program will
provide additional opportunities for businesses to begin supplying
biobased materials to manufacturers of adhesive and mastic removers,
insulating foam for wall construction, hand cleaners and sanitizers,
composite panels, fluid-filled transformers, biodegradable containers,
fertilizers, metalworking fluids, sorbents, and graffiti and grease
removers and to begin supplying these products made with biobased
materials to Federal agencies and their contractors. In addition, other
businesses, including small businesses, that do not directly contract
with procuring agencies may be affected positively by the increased
demand for these biobased materials and products. However, other
businesses that manufacture and supply only non-qualifying products and
do not offer a biobased alternative product may experience a decrease
in demand for their products. Thus, today's proposed
[[Page 47585]]
rule will likely increase the demand for biobased products, while
decreasing the demand for non-qualifying products. It is anticipated
that this will create a largely ``offsetting'' economic impact.
USDA is unable to determine the number of businesses, including
small businesses, that may be adversely affected by today's proposed
rule. If a business currently supplies any of the items proposed for
designation to a procuring agency and those products do not qualify as
biobased products, the proposed rule may reduce that company's ability
to compete for future contracts. However, the proposed rule will not
affect existing purchase orders, nor will it preclude businesses from
modifying their product lines to meet new specifications or
solicitation requirements for these products containing biobased
materials. Thus, many businesses, including small businesses, that
market to Federal agencies and their contractors have the option of
modifying their product lines to meet the new biobased specifications.
2. Summary of Benefits
The designation of these 10 items provides the benefits outlined in
the objectives of section 9002: To increase domestic demand for
biobased products and, thus, for the many agricultural commodities that
can serve as feedstocks for production of biobased products; to spur
development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural
processing and manufacturing in rural communities; and to enhance the
nation's energy security by substituting biobased products for products
derived from imported oil and natural gas. The increased demand for
biobased products will also lead to the substitution of products with a
possibly more benign or beneficial environmental impact, as compared to
the use of non-biobased products. By purchasing these biobased
products, procuring agencies can increase opportunities for all of
these benefits. On a national and regional level, today's proposed rule
can result in expanding and strengthening markets for biobased
materials used in these 10 items. However, because the extent to which
procuring agencies will find the performance and costs of biobased
products acceptable is unknown, it is impossible to quantify the actual
economic effect of today's proposed rule. USDA, however, anticipates
the annual economic effect of the designation of these 10 items to be
substantially below the $100 million threshold. In addition, today's
proposed rule does not do any of the following: Create serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or policy issues arising out
of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in Executive Order 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
USDA evaluated the potential impacts of its proposed designation of
these 10 items to determine whether its actions would have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because
the Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program in section
9002 of FSRIA applies only to Federal agencies and their contractors,
small governmental (city, county, etc.) agencies are not affected.
Thus, the proposal, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on small governmental jurisdictions. USDA anticipates
that this program will affect entities, both large and small, that
manufacture or sell biobased products. For example, the designation of
items for preferred procurement will provide additional opportunities
for businesses to manufacture and sell biobased products to Federal
agencies and their contractors. Similar opportunities will be provided
for entities that supply biobased materials to manufacturers.
Conversely, the biobased procurement program may decrease opportunities
for businesses that manufacture or sell non-biobased products or
provide components for the manufacturing of such products. However, the
proposed rule will not affect existing purchase orders and it will not
preclude procuring agencies from continuing to purchase non-biobased
items under certain conditions relating to the availability,
performance, or cost of biobased items. Today's proposed rule will also
not preclude businesses from modifying their product lines to meet new
specifications or solicitation requirements for these products
containing biobased materials. Thus, the economic impacts of today's
proposed rule are not expected to be significant.
The intent of section 9002 is largely to stimulate the production
of new biobased products and to energize emerging markets for those
products. Because the program is still in its infancy, however, it is
unknown how many businesses will ultimately be affected. While USDA has
no data on the number of small businesses that may choose to develop
and market products within the 10 items proposed for designation by
today's proposed rulemaking, the number is expected to be small.
Because biobased products represent an emerging market, only a small
percentage of all manufacturers, large or small, are expected to
develop and market biobased products. Thus, the number of small
businesses affected by today's proposed rulemaking is not expected to
be substantial.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, USDA certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
While not a factor relevant to determining whether the proposed
rule will have a significant impact for RFA purposes, USDA has
concluded that the effect of today's proposed rule would be to provide
positive opportunities to businesses engaged in the manufacture of
these biobased products. Purchase and use of these biobased products by
procuring agencies increase demand for these products and result in
private sector development of new technologies, creating business and
employment opportunities that enhance local, regional, and national
economies. Technological innovation associated with the use of biobased
materials can translate into economic growth and increased industry
competitiveness worldwide, thereby, creating opportunities for small
entities.
C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and does not contain
policies that would have implications for these rights.
D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
[[Page 47586]]
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule does not preempt State
or local laws, is not intended to have retroactive effect, and does not
involve administrative appeals.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Provisions of
this proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States
or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various government levels.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, and tribal
governments, or the private sector. Therefore, a statement under
section 202 of UMRA is not required.
G. Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule Related Notice for 7
CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is
excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. This
program does not directly affect State and local governments.
H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect
``one or more Indian tribes, * * * the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or * * * the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
Thus, no further action is required under Executive Order 13175.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 through 3520), the information collection under this proposed rule
is currently approved under OMB control number 0503-0011.
J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
The Office of Energy Policy and New Uses is committed to compliance
with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3504
note), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the
public the option of submitting information or transacting business
electronically to the maximum extent possible. USDA is implementing an
electronic information system for posting information voluntarily
submitted by manufacturers or vendors on the products they intend to
offer for preferred procurement under each item designated. For
information pertinent to GPEA compliance related to this rule, please
contact Marvin Duncan at (202) 401-0461.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 2902
Biobased products, Procurement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of
Agriculture proposes to amend 7 CFR chapter XXIX as follows:
CHAPTER XXIX--OFFICE OF ENERGY POLICY AND NEW USES, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
PART 2902--GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNATING BIOBASED PRODUCTS FOR FEDERAL
PROCUREMENT
1. The authority citation for part 2902 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8102.
2. Add Sec. Sec. 2902.16 through 2902.25 to subpart B to read as
follows:
Subpart B--Designated Items
* * * * *
Sec.
2902.16 Adhesive and Mastic Removers.
2902.17 Insulating Foam for Wall Construction.
2902.18 Hand Cleaners and Sanitizers.
2902.19 Composite Panels.
2902.20 Fluid-filled Transformers.
2902.21 Biodegradable Containers.
2902.22 Fertilizers.
2902.23 Metalworking Fluids.
2902.24 Sorbents.
2902.25 Graffiti and Grease Removers.
Subpart B--Designated Items
* * * * *
Sec. 2902.16 Adhesive and Mastic Removers.
(a) Definition. Industrial cleaning solvent products formulated for
use in removing asbestos, carpet, and ceramic tile mastics as well as
adhesive materials, including glue, tape, and gum, from various surface
types.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 58
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased adhesive and mastic removers. 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 adhesive and mastic removers.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.17 Insulating Foam for Wall Construction.
(a) Definition. Products designed to provide a sealed thermal
barrier for residential or commercial construction applications.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 8
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased insulating foam for wall construction. 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 insulating foam for
wall construction.
(d) Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content
product. Qualifying biobased products that fall under this item may, in
some cases, overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product:
Building Insulation. USDA is requesting that manufacturers of these
qualifying biobased products provide information on the USDA Web site
of qualifying biobased products about the intended uses of the product,
information on whether or not the product contains any recovered
material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and performance
standards against which the product has been tested. This information
will assist Federal agencies in determining whether or not a qualifying
biobased product overlaps with EPA-designated building insulation and
which product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the
[[Page 47587]]
preferred procurement requirement for this item.
Sec. 2902.18 Hand Cleaners and Sanitizers.
(a) Definition. Personal care products formulated for use in
removing a variety of different soils, greases, and bacteria from human
hands with or without the use of water.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 18
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased hand cleaners and sanitizers. 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 hand cleaners and sanitizers.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.19 Composite Panels.
(a) Definition. Engineered products designed for use in non-
structural construction applications, including wall panels, shelving,
decorative panels, lavatory dividers, and exterior signs.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 26
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased composite panels. 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 composite panels.
(d) Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content
product. Qualifying biobased products that fall under this item may, in
some cases, overlap with the following EPA-designated recovered content
products: Laminated Paperboard and Structural Foam Board; Shower and
Restroom Dividers; and Signage. USDA is requesting that manufacturers
of these qualifying biobased products provide information on the USDA
Web site of qualifying biobased products about the intended uses of the
product, information on whether or not the product contains any
recovered material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and
performance standards against which the product has been tested. This
information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether or not
a qualifying biobased product overlaps with EPA-designated laminated
paperboard, structural foam board, shower and restroom dividers, and
signage, and which product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.20 Fluid-filled Transformers.
(a) Definition. Electric power transformers that are designed to
utilize a dielectric (non-conducting) fluid to provide insulating and
cooling properties.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 66
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the dielectric fluid within the fluid-filled transformer as a
percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the fluid.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased fluid-filled transformers. 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 fluid-filled transformers.
(d) Exemptions. The following applications are exempt from the
preferred procurement requirement for this item:
(1) Military equipment: Product or system designed or procured for
combat or combat-related missions.
(2) Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment.
Sec. 2902.21 Biodegradable Containers.
(a) Definition. Products capable of complying with the
specifications established in the biodegradability standard ASTM D6400
``Standard Specifications for Compostable Plastics'' and designed to be
used for temporary storage or transportation of materials such as food
items.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 96
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased biodegradable containers. By that date, Federal
agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing
specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant
specifications require the use of biobased biodegradable containers.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.22 Fertilizers.
(a) Definition. Products formulated or processed to provide
nutrients for plant growth and/or beneficial bacteria to convert
nutrients into plant usable forms.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 71
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased fertilizers. 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 fertilizers.
(d) Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content
product. Qualifying biobased products that fall under this item may, in
some cases, overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product:
Fertilizers Made From Recovered Organic Materials. USDA is requesting
that manufacturers of these qualifying biobased products provide
information on the USDA Web site of qualifying biobased products about
the intended uses of the product, information on whether or not the
product contains any recovered material, in addition to biobased
ingredients, and performance standards against which the product has
been tested. This information will assist
[[Page 47588]]
Federal agencies in determining whether or not a qualifying biobased
product overlaps with EPA-designated fertilizers and which product
should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.23 Metalworking Fluids.
(a) Definition. Products formulated for use in a re-circulating
fluid system to provide cooling, lubrication, and corrosion prevention
when applied to metal feedstock during operations such as grinding and
machining.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 40
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the undiluted product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total
organic carbon in the finished product. If the finished product is to
be diluted before use, the biobased content of the fluid must be
determined before dilution.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased metalworking fluids. By that date, Federal agencies
that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications
for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications
require the use of biobased metalworking fluids.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.24 Sorbents.
(a) Definition. Materials formulated for use in the clean up and
bioremediation of oil and chemical spills, the disposal of liquid
materials, or the prevention of leakage or leaching in maintenance
applications, shop floors, and fuel storage areas.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 52
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying biobased sorbents. 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 sorbents.
(d) Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content
product. Qualifying biobased products that fall under this item may, in
some cases, overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product:
Sorbents. USDA is requesting that manufacturers of these qualifying
biobased products provide information on the USDA Web site of
qualifying biobased products about the intended uses of the product,
information on whether or not the product contains any recovered
material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and performance
standards against which the product has been tested. This information
will assist Federal agencies in determining whether or not a qualifying
biobased product overlaps with EPA-designated sorbents and which
product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Sec. 2902.25 Graffiti and Grease Removers.
(a) Definition. Industrial solvent products formulated to remove
automotive, industrial, or kitchen soils and oils, including grease,
paint, and other coatings, from hard surfaces.
(b) Minimum biobased content. The minimum biobased content is 21
percent and shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon
in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic
carbon in the finished product. If the finished product is to be
diluted before use, the biobased content of the remover must be
determined before dilution.
(c) Preference effective date. No later than [date one year after
the date of publication of the final rule], procuring agencies, in
accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for
qualifying graffiti and grease removers. 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 graffiti and grease removers.
(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems and launch support equipment
applications are exempt from the preferred procurement requirement for
this item.
Dated: August 10, 2006.
Keith Collins,
Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 06-6922 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-GL-P