47590 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses 

7 CFR Part 2902 

RIN 0503–AA31 

Designation of Biobased Items for 

Federal Procurement 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Policy and 

New Uses, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to 

amend 7 CFR part 2902, Guidelines for 

Designating Biobased Products for 

Federal Procurement, to add 10 sections 

to designate the following 10 items 

within which biobased products would 

be afforded Federal procurement 

preference, as provided for under 

section 9002 of the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002: 2-Cycle 

engine oils; lip care products; 

biodegradable films; stationary 

equipment hydraulic fluids; 

biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners; 

greases; dust suppressants; carpets; and 

carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA 

also is proposing minimum biobased 

content for each of these items. Once 

USDA designates an item, procuring 

agencies are required generally to 

purchase biobased products within 

these designated items where the 

purchase price of the procurement item 

exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity 

of such items or the functionally 

equivalent items purchased over the 

preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or 

more. 

DATES: USDA will accept public 

comments on this proposed rule until 

October 16, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods. All 

submissions received must include the 

agency name and Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN). The RIN for 

this rulemaking is 0503–AA31. Also, 

please identify submittals as pertaining 

to the ‘‘Proposed Designation of Items.’’ 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: fb4p@oce.usda.gov. Include 

RIN number 0503–AA31 and ‘‘Proposed 

Designation of Items’’ on the subject 

line. Please include your name and 

address in your message. 

• Mail/commercial/hand delivery: 

Mail or deliver your comments to: 

Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the 

Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses, Room 4059, South 

Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., MS–3815, Washington, DC 20250– 

3815. 

• Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for 

communication for regulatory 

information (braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact the 

USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720– 

2600 (voice) and (202) 401–4133 (TDD). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the 

Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses, Room 4059, South 

Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., MS–3815, Washington, DC 20250– 

3815; e-mail: mduncan@oce.usda.gov; 

phone (202) 401–0461. Information 

regarding the Federal Biobased Products 

Preferred Procurement Program is 

available on the Internet at 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47591 

and, under section 9002(e)(1)(C), to 

recommend where appropriate the 

minimum level of biobased content to 

be contained in the procured products. 

Overlap with EPA Comprehensive 

Procurement Guidelines program for 

recovered content products. Some of the 

biobased items designated for preferred 

procurement may overlap with products 

designated under the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines 

program for recovered content products. 

Where that occurs, an EPA-designated 

recovered content product (also known 

as ‘‘recycled content products’’ or ‘‘EPAdesignated products’’) has priority in 

Federal procurement over the qualifying 

biobased product. In situations where 

USDA believes there may be an overlap, 

it plans to ask manufacturers of 

qualifying biobased products to provide 

additional product and performance 

information including the various 

suggested uses of their product and the 

performance standards against which a 

particular product has been tested. In 

addition, depending on the type of 

biobased product, manufacturers may 

also be asked to provide other types of 

information, such as whether the 

product contains petroleum-, coal-, or 

natural gas-based components and 

whether the product contains recovered 

materials. Federal agencies may also ask 

manufacturers for information on a 

product’s biobased content and its 

profile against environmental and 

human health measures and life cycle 

costs (the Building for Environmental 

and Economic Sustainability (BEES) 

analysis or ASTM International (ASTM) 

Standard D7075 for evaluating and 

reporting on environmental 

performance of biobased products). 

Such information will assist Federal 

agencies in determining whether the 

biobased products in question are, or are 

not, the same products for the same uses 

as the recovered content products and 

will be available on USDA’s Web site 

with its catalog of qualifying biobased 

products. 

Where a biobased item is used for the 

same purposes and to meet the same 

requirements as an EPA-designated 

recovered content product, the Federal 

agency must purchase the recovered 

content product. For example, if a 

biobased hydraulic fluid is to be used as 

a fluid in hydraulic systems and 

‘‘lubricating oils containing re-refined 

oil’’ has already been designated by EPA 

for that purpose, then the Federal 

agency must purchase the EPAdesignated recovered content product, 

‘‘lubricating oils containing re-refined 

oil.’’ If, on the other hand, that biobased 

hydraulic fluid is to be used to address 

certain environmental or health 

requirements that the EPA-designated 

recovered content product would not 

meet, then the biobased product should 

be given preference, subject to cost, 

availability, and performance. 

Federal Government Purchase of 

‘‘Green’’ Products. Three components of 

the Federal government’s green 

purchasing program are the Biobased 

Products Preferred Purchasing Program, 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines 

for products containing recovered 

materials, and the Environmentally 

Preferable Products Program. The Office 

of the Federal Environmental Executive 

(OFEE) and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) encourage agencies 

to implement these components 

comprehensively when purchasing 

products and services. 

In the case of cleaning products, 

procuring agencies should note that not 

all biobased products are 

‘‘environmentally preferable.’’ Unless 

the cleaning products contain no or 

reduced levels of metals and toxic and 

hazardous constituents, they can be 

harmful to aquatic life, the environment, 

or workers. When purchasing 

environmentally preferable cleaning 

products, many Federal agencies specify 

that products must meet Green Seal 

standards for institutional cleaning 

products or that products have been 

reformulated in accordance with 

recommendations from the U.S. EPA’s 

Design for the Environment (DfE) 

program. Both the Green Seal standards 

and the DfE program identify chemicals 

of concern in cleaning products. These 

include zinc and other metals, 

formaldehyde, ammonia, alkylphenol 

ethoxylates, ethylene glycol, and 

volatile organic compounds. In 

addition, both require that cleaning 

products have neutral or less caustic 

pH. 

On the other hand, some biobased 

products may be better for the 

environment than some products that 

meet Green Seal standards for 

institutional cleaning products or that 

have been reformulated in accordance 

with the EPA’s DfE program. To fully 

compare products, one must look at the 

‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts of the 

manufacture, use, and disposal of 

products. Biobased products that will be 

available for preferred procurement 

under this program have been assessed 

as to their ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts. 

One consideration of a product’s 

impact on the environment is whether 

(and to what degree) it introduces new 

fossil carbon into the atmosphere. 

Qualifying biobased products offer the 

user the opportunity to manage the 

carbon cycle and limit the introduction 

of new fossil carbon into the 

atmosphere, whereas non-biobased 

products derived from fossil fuels add 

new fossil carbon to the atmosphere. 

Manufacturers of qualifying biobased 

products under the Federal Biobased 

Products Preferred Procurement 

Program (FB4P) will be able to provide, 

at the request of Federal agencies, 

factual information on environmental 

and human health effects of their 

products, including the results of the 

BEES analysis, which examines 11 

different environmental parameters, 

including human health, or the 

comparable ASTM D7505. Therefore, 

USDA encourages Federal procurement 

agencies to examine all available 

information on the environmental and 

human health effects of cleaning 

products when making their purchasing 

decisions. 

Green Building Council. More than a 

dozen Federal agencies use the U.S. 

Green Building Council’s Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) Green Building Rating Systems 

for new construction, building 

renovation, and building operation and 

maintenance. The systems provide 

criteria for implementing sustainable 

design principles in building design, 

construction, operation, and 

maintenance. Points are assigned to 

each criterion, and building projects can 

be certified as ‘‘certified,’’ ‘‘silver,’’

‘‘gold,’’ or ‘‘platinum,’’ depending on 

the number of points for which the 

project qualifies. LEED for New 

Construction and Major Renovations 

(LEED-NC) includes a ‘‘Materials & 

Resources’’ criterion, with one point 

allocated for the use of rapidly 

renewable materials. Thus, the use of 

biobased construction products can help 

agencies obtain LEED certification for 

their building construction projects. 

Interagency Council. USDA has 

created, and is chairing, an ‘‘interagency 

council,’’ with membership selected 

from among Federal stakeholders to the 

FB4P. To augment its own research, 

USDA consults with this council in 

identifying the order of item 

designation, manufacturers producing 

and marketing products that fall within 

an item proposed for designation, 

performance standards used by Federal 

agencies evaluating products to be 

procured, and warranty information 

used by manufacturers of end user 

equipment and other products with 

regard to biobased products. 

III. Summary of Today’s Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Today, USDA is proposing to 

designate the following 10 items for 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47592 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

preferred procurement: 2-Cycle engine 

oils; lip care products; biodegradable 

films; stationary equipment hydraulic 

fluids; biodegradable cutlery; glass 

cleaners; greases; dust suppressants; 

carpets; and carpet and upholstery 

cleaners. USDA is also proposing 

minimum biobased content for each of 

these items (see Section IV.C). Lastly, 

USDA is proposing a date by which 

Federal agencies must incorporate 

designated items into their procurement 

specifications (see Section IV.D). 

In today’s proposed rulemaking, 

USDA is providing information on its 

findings as to the availability, economic 

and technical feasibility, environmental 

and public health benefits, and life 

cycle costs for each of the 10 designated 

items. Information on the availability, 

relative price, performance, and 

environmental and public health 

benefits of individual products within 

each of these 10 items is not presented 

in this notice. Further, USDA has 

reached an agreement with 

manufacturers not to publish their 

names in the Federal Register when 

designating items. This agreement was 

reached to encourage manufacturers to 

submit products for testing to support 

the designation of an item. Once an item 

has been designated, USDA will 

encourage the manufacturers of 

products within the designated item to 

voluntarily post their names and other 

contact information on the USDA FB4P 

Web site. 

Warranties. Some of the items being 

proposed for designation today may 

affect maintenance warranties. As time 

and resources allow, USDA will work 

with manufacturers on addressing any 

effect the use of biobased products may 

have on maintenance warranties. At this 

time, however, USDA does not have 

information available as to whether or 

not the manufacturers will state that the 

use of these products will void 

maintenance warranties. USDA 

encourages manufacturers of biobased 

products to work with original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to 

ensure that biobased products will not 

void maintenance warranties when 

used. USDA is willing to assist 

manufacturers of the biobased products, 

if they find that existing performance 

standards for maintenance warranties 

are not relevant or appropriate for 

biobased products, in working with the 

appropriate OEMs to develop tests that 

are relevant and appropriate for the end 

uses in which biobased products are 

intended. If despite these efforts there is 

insufficient information regarding the 

use of a biobased product and its effect 

on maintenance warranties, USDA notes 

that the procurement agent would not 

be required to buy such a product. As 

information is available on warranties, 

USDA will make such information 

available on its FB4P Web site. 

Additional Information. USDA is 

working with manufacturers and 

vendors to post all relevant product and 

manufacturer contact information on the 

FB4P Web site before a procuring 

agency asks for it, in order to make the 

preferred program more efficient. Steps 

USDA has implemented, or will 

implement, include: Making direct 

contact with submitting companies 

through e-mail and phone conversations 

to encourage completion of product 

listing; coordinating outreach efforts 

with intermediate material producers to 

encourage participation of their 

customer base; conducting targeted 

outreach with industry and commodity 

groups to educate stakeholders on the 

importance of providing complete 

product information; participating in 

industry conferences and meetings to 

educate companies on program benefits 

and requirements; and communicating 

the potential for expanded markets 

beyond the Federal government, to 

include State and local governments, as 

well as the general public markets. 

Section V provides instructions to 

agencies on how to obtain this 

information on products within these 

items through the following Web site: 

http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov. 

Comments. USDA invites comment 

on the proposed designation of these 10 

items, including the definition, 

proposed minimum biobased content, 

and any of the relevant analyses 

performed during the selection of these 

items. In addition, USDA invites 

comments and information in the 

following areas: 

1. Two of the items being proposed 

for designation (stationary equipment 

hydraulic fluids and carpets) may 

overlap with products designated under 

EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement 

Guidelines for products containing 

recovered material. To help procuring 

agencies in making their purchasing 

decisions between biobased products 

within the proposed designated items 

that overlap with products containing 

recovered material, USDA is requesting 

from manufacturers and users product 

specific information on unique 

performance attributes, environmental 

and human health effects, disposal 

costs, and other attributes that would 

distinguish biobased products from 

products containing recovered material 

as well as non-biobased products. USDA 

will post this information on the FB4P 

Web site. 

2. Biobased carpet can be composed 

of a biobased face or a biobased backing 

or both (i.e., both the face and backing 

are biobased). USDA is proposing in 

today’s notice that the minimum 

biobased content for carpet be based on 

the total product; that is, on both the 

carpet’s face and backing. USDA is 

seeking comment on whether separate 

minimum biobased contents should be 

set for the face and for the backing. 

Please provide detailed rationale and 

information to support your comments. 

3. USDA is proposing to designate 

dust suppressants as an item for 

preferred procurement. The products 

intended to be covered are those 

designed for use in outdoor 

environments. However, the same 

products, or products with very similar 

formulations, may also be used in 

indoor environments, such as indoor 

arenas, that simulate outdoor 

conditions. For example, an indoor 

arena might provide parking on a dirt 

floor, such as would be found in outside 

parking. USDA is proposing that dust 

suppressant products used for similar 

situations that take place within an 

indoor environment be included in this 

item. USDA is interested in your 

comments on whether this item should 

be strictly limited to outdoor 

environments. Please be sure to provide 

your rationale for your comments. 

4. We have attempted to identify 

relevant and appropriate performance 

standards and other relevant measures 

of performance for each of the proposed 

items. If you know of other such 

standards or relevant measures of 

performance for the proposed items, 

USDA requests that you submit 

information identifying such standards 

and measures, including their name 

(and other identifying information as 

necessary), identifying who is using the 

standard/measure, and describing the 

circumstances under which the product 

is being used. For example, in today’s 

proposed rulemaking, a Green Seal 

standard (GS–37) has been identified for 

glass cleaners. USDA is interested in 

learning if other equivalent standards 

for glass cleaners exist and where they 

are being used. 

5. As proposed, biodegradable films 

do not include films used for 

agricultural purposes (such as films that 

would be used to cover fields) and 

durable films. Durable films will be 

proposed as a separate item for 

preferred procurement. USDA, however, 

is interested in receiving comment on 

whether there should be any 

subcategories within biodegradable 

films (including any biodegradable films 

that might be considered agricultural 

films) and what they might be. Please be 

sure to provide rationale and supporting 

information with your comments. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47593 

6. Many biobased products within the 

items being proposed for designation 

will have positive environmental and 

human health attributes. USDA is 

seeking comments on such attributes in 

order to provide additional information 

on the FB4P Web site. This information 

will then be available to Federal 

procuring agencies and will assist them 

in making ‘‘best value’’ purchase 

decisions. When possible, please 

provide appropriate documentation to 

support the environmental and human 

health attributes you describe. 

To assist you in developing your 

comments, the background information 

used in proposing these items for 

designation can be found on the FB4P 

Web site. All comments should be 

submitted as directed in the ADDRESSES

section above. 

IV. Designation of Items, Minimum 

Biobased Contents, and Time Frame 

A. Background 

In order to designate items (generic 

groupings of specific products such as 

crankcase oils or products that contain 

qualifying biobased fibers) for preferred 

procurement, section 9002 requires 

USDA to consider: (1) The availability 

of items; and (2) the economic and 

technological feasibility of using the 

items, including the life cycle costs of 

the items. 

In considering an item’s availability, 

USDA uses several sources of 

information. USDA performs Internet 

searches, contacts trade associations 

(such as the Biobased Manufacturers 

Association) and commodity groups, 

searches the Thomas Register (a 

database, used as a resource for finding 

companies and products manufactured 

in North America, containing over 

173,000 entries), and contacts 

individual manufacturers and vendors 

to identify those manufacturers and 

vendors with biobased products within 

items being considered for designation. 

USDA uses the results of these same 

searches to determine if an item is 

generally available. 

In considering an item’s economic 

and technological feasibility, USDA 

examines evidence pointing to the 

general commercial use of an item and 

its cost and performance characteristics. 

This information is obtained from the 

sources used to assess an item’s 

availability. Commercial use, in turn, is 

evidenced by any manufacturer and 

vendor information on the availability, 

relative prices, and performance of their 

products as well as by evidence of an 

item being purchased by a procuring 

agency or other entity, where available. 

In sum, USDA considers an item 

economically and technologically 

feasible for purposes of designation if 

products within that item are being 

offered and used in the marketplace. 

In considering the life cycle costs of 

items proposed for designation, USDA 

uses the BEES analytical tool to test 

individual products within each 

proposed item. (Detailed information on 

this analytical tool can be found on the 

Web site http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/ 

software/bees.html.) The BEES 

analytical tool measures the 

environmental performance and the 

economic performance of a product. 

Environmental performance is 

measured in the BEES analytical tool 

using the internationally-standardized 

and science-based life cycle assessment 

approach specified in the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

14000 standards. The BEES 

environmental performance analysis 

includes human health as one of its 

components. All stages in the life of a 

product are analyzed: Raw material 

production; manufacture; 

transportation; installation; use; and 

recycling and waste management. The 

time period over which environmental 

performance is measured begins with 

raw material production and ends with 

disposal (waste management). The BEES 

environmental performance analysis 

also addresses products made from 

biobased feedstocks. 

Economic performance in the BEES 

analysis is measured using the ASTM 

standard life cycle cost method (ASTM 

E917), which covers the costs of initial 

investment, replacement, operation, 

maintenance and repair, and disposal. 

The time frame for economic 

performance extends from the purchase 

of the product to final disposal. 

USDA then utilizes the BEES results 

of individual products within a 

designated item in its consideration of 

the life cycle costs at the item level. 

There is a single unit of comparison 

associated with each designated item. 

The basis for the unit of comparison is 

the ‘‘functional unit,’’ defined so that 

the products compared are true 

substitutes for one another. If significant 

differences have been identified in the 

useful lives of alternative products 

within a designated item (e.g., if one 

product lasts twice as long as another), 

the functional unit will include 

reference to a time dimension to 

account for the frequency of product 

replacement. The functional unit also 

will account for products used in 

different amounts for equivalent service. 

For example, one surface coating 

product may be environmentally and 

economically preferable to another on a 

pound-for-pound basis, but may require 

twice the mass to cover one square foot 

of surface, and last half as long, as the 

other product. To account for these 

performance differences, the functional 

unit for the surface coating item could 

be ‘‘one square foot of application for 20 

years’’ instead of ‘‘one pound of surface 

coating product.’’ The functional unit 

provides the critical reference point to 

which all BEES results for products 

within an item are scaled. Because 

functional units vary from item to item, 

performance comparisons are valid only 

among products within a designated 

item. 

The complete results of the BEES 

analysis, extrapolated to the item level, 

for each item proposed for designation 

in today’s proposed rulemaking can be 

found at http:// 

www.biobased.oce.usda.gov. 

As discussed above, the BEES 

analysis includes information on the 

environmental performance, human 

health impacts, and economic 

performance. In addition, ASTM D7505, 

which manufacturers may use in lieu of 

the BEES analytical tool, provides 

similar information. USDA is working 

with manufacturers and vendors to post 

this information on the FB4P Web site 

before a procuring agency asks for it, in 

order to make the preferred 

procurement program more efficient. As 

discussed earlier, USDA has also 

implemented, or will implement, 

several other steps intended to educate 

the manufacturers and other 

stakeholders on the benefits of this 

program and the need to post this 

information, including manufacturer 

contact information, on the FB4P Web 

site to make it available to procurement 

officials. Additional information on 

specific products within the items 

proposed for designation may also be 

obtained directly from the 

manufacturers of the products. 

USDA recognizes that information 

related to the functional performance of 

biobased products is a primary factor in 

making the decision to purchase these 

products. USDA is gathering from 

manufacturers of biobased products 

being considered for designation 

information on industry standard test 

methods that they are using to evaluate 

the functional performance of their 

products. Additional standards are also 

being identified during meetings of the 

Interagency Council and during the 

review process for each proposed rule. 

We have listed under the detailed 

discussion of each item proposed for 

designation (presented in Section IV.B) 

the functional performance test methods 

identified during the development of 

this Federal Register notice for these 10 

items. While this process identifies 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47594 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

many of the relevant standards, USDA 

recognizes that the performance test 

methods identified herein do not 

represent all of the methods that may be 

applicable for a designated item or for 

any individual product within the 

designated item. As noted earlier in this 

preamble, USDA is requesting 

identification of other relevant 

performance standards and measures of 

performance. As the program becomes 

fully implemented, these and other 

additional relevant performance 

standards will be available on the FB4P 

Web site. 

In gathering information relevant to 

the analyses discussed above, USDA has 

made extensive efforts to contact and 

request information and product 

samples from representatives of all 

known manufacturers of products 

within the items proposed for 

designation. However, because the 

submission of information is on a 

strictly voluntary basis, USDA was able 

to obtain information and samples only 

from those manufacturers who were 

willing voluntarily to invest the 

resources required to gather and submit 

the information and samples. USDA 

used the samples to test for biobased 

content and the information to conduct 

the BEES analyses. The data presented 

are all the data that were submitted in 

response to USDA requests for 

information from all known 

manufacturers of the products within 

the 10 items proposed for designation. 

While USDA would prefer to have 

complete data on the full range of 

products within each item, the data that 

were submitted are sufficient to support 

designation of the items in today’s 

proposed rulemaking. 

To propose an item for designation, 

USDA must have sufficient information 

on a sufficient number of products 

within an item to be able to assess its 

availability and its economic and 

technological feasibility, including its 

life cycle costs. For some items, there 

may be numerous products available. 

For other items, there may be very few 

products currently available. Given the 

infancy of the market for some items, it 

is not unexpected that even singleproduct items will be identified. 

Further, given that the intent of section 

9002 is largely to stimulate the 

production of new biobased products 

and to energize emerging markets for 

those products, USDA has determined 

that the identification of two or more 

biobased products within an item, or 

even a single product with two or more 

suppliers, is sufficient to consider the 

designation of that item. Similarly, the 

documented availability, benefits, and 

life cycle costs of even a very small 

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 nonbiobased products? 

• Do they meet industry performance 

standards? 

• Are they readily available on the 

commercial market? 

In addition to these primary concerns, 

USDA then considers the following 

points: 

• Are there manufacturers interested 

in providing the necessary test 

information on products within a 

particular item? 

• Are there a number of 

manufacturers producing biobased 

products in this item? 

• Are there products available in this 

item? 

• What level of difficulty is expected 

when designating this item? 

• Is there Federal demand for the 

product? 

• Are Federal procurement personnel 

looking for biobased products? 

• Will an item create a high demand 

for biobased feed stock? 

• Does manufacturing of products 

within this item increase potential for 

rural development? 

After completing this evaluation, 

USDA prioritizes the list of items for 

designation. USDA then gathers 

information on products within the 

highest priority items and, as sufficient 

information becomes available for 

groups of approximately 10 items, a new 

rulemaking package will be developed 

to designate the items within that group. 

The list of items may change, with items 

being added or dropped, and the order 

in which items are proposed for 

designation is likely to change because 

the information necessary to designate 

an item may take more time to obtain 

than an item lower on the list. 

In today’s proposed rulemaking, 

USDA is proposing to designate 10 

items for the preferred procurement 

program: 2-Cycle engine oils; lip care 

products; biodegradable films; 

stationary equipment hydraulic fluids; 

biodegradable cutlery; glass cleaners; 

greases; dust suppressants; carpets; and 

carpet and upholstery cleaners. USDA 

has determined that each of these 10 

items meets the necessary statutory 

requirements—namely, that they are 

being produced with biobased products 

and that their procurement by procuring 

agencies will carry out the following 

objectives of section 9002: 

• To increase demand for biobased 

products, which would in turn increase 

demand for agricultural commodities 

that can serve as feedstocks for the 

production of biobased products; 

• To spur development of the 

industrial base through value-added 

agricultural processing and 

manufacturing in rural communities; 

and 

• To enhance the nation’s energy 

security by substituting biobased 

products for products derived from 

imported oil and natural gas. 

Further, USDA has sufficient 

information on these 10 items to 

determine their availability and to 

conduct the requisite analyses to 

determine their biobased content and 

their economic and technological 

feasibility, including life cycle costs. 

Mature Markets. Section 2902.5(c)(2) 

of the final guidelines states that USDA 

will not designate items for preferred 

procurement that are determined to 

have mature markets. Mature markets 

are described as items that had 

significant national market penetration 

in 1972. USDA contacted 

manufacturers, manufacturing 

associations, and industry researchers to 

determine if, in 1972, biobased products 

had a significant market share within 

any of the items proposed for 

designation today. USDA found that 

biobased products within none of the 10 

items proposed for designation today 

had a significant market share in 1972 

and that, generally, the companies that 

produce biobased products within these 

proposed designated items have been in 

business for only 10 to 20 years. 

Overlap with EPA-Designated 

Recovered Content Products. In today’s 

proposed rule, two of the 10 items may 

overlap with EPA-designated recovered 

content products. These two items are: 

stationary equipment hydraulic fluid 

and carpets. For these two items, USDA 

is requesting that certain information on 

the qualifying biobased products be 

made available by their manufacturers 

to assist Federal agencies in determining 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47595 

if an overlap exists between the 

qualifying biobased product and the 

applicable EPA-designated recovered 

content product. As noted earlier in this 

preamble, USDA is requesting 

information on overlap situations to 

further help procuring agencies make 

informed decisions when faced with 

purchasing a recovered content material 

product or a biobased product. As this 

information is developed, USDA will 

make it available on the FB4P Web site. 

Exemptions. When proposing items 

for preferred procurement under the 

FB4P, USDA will identify, on an itemby-item basis, items that would be 

exempt from preferred procurement on 

the basis of their use in products and 

systems designed or procured for 

combat or combat-related missions. 

USDA believes it is inappropriate to 

apply the biobased purchasing 

requirement to tactical equipment 

unless the Department of Defense has 

documented that these products can 

meet the performance requirements for 

such equipment and are available in 

sufficient supply to meet domestic and 

overseas deployment needs. After 

evaluating these situations for each of 

the 10 items being proposed for 

designation, USDA is proposing to 

exempt 2-cycle engine oils, stationary 

hydraulic fluids, greases, and dust 

suppressants from preferred 

procurement under the FB4P when used 

in combat or combat-related missions. 

USDA is proposing an exemption for 

all designated items when used in 

spacecraft systems and launch support 

equipment, because failure of such 

items could lead to catastrophic 

consequences. Many, if not all, items 

that USDA is or is planning to designate 

for preferred procurement are or will be 

used in space applications. Frequently, 

such applications used these items in 

ways that are different from their more 

‘‘conventional’’ use on Earth. It is 

difficult, if not impossible, to forecast 

what situations may occur when these 

items are used in space and how they 

will perform. Therefore, USDA believes 

is it reasonable to limit the preferred 

procurement program to items used in 

more conventional applications and is 

proposing to exempt all designated 

items used in space applications from 

the FB4P. 

For each item being proposed for 

exemption, the exemption does not 

extend to contractors performing work 

for DoD or NASA. For example, if a 

contractor is producing a part for use on 

the space shuttle, the metalworking 

fluid the contractor uses to produce the 

part should be biobased (provided it 

meets the specifications for 

metalworking). The exemption does 

apply, however, if the product being 

purchased by the contractor is for use in 

combat or combat-related missions or 

for use in space applications. For 

example, if the part being produced by 

the contractor would actually be part of 

the space shuttle, then the exemption 

applies. 

Each of the 10 proposed designated 

items are discussed in the following 

sections. 

1. 2-Cycle Engine Oils 

2-Cycle engine oils are lubricant 

products formulated to provide cleanburning lubrication, decreased spark 

plug fouling, reduced deposit formation, 

and reduced engine wear in 2-cycle 

gasoline engines (commonly found in 

lawn and garden equipment, small 

marine craft, and personal recreational 

vehicles such as motorcycles and 

snowmobiles). Biobased 2-cycle engine 

oils are typically formulated from 

natural soy, canola, or other seed-based 

oil feed stocks. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in products 

and systems designed or procured for 

combat or combat-related missions and 

in spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

For biobased 2-cycle engine oils, 

USDA identified 11 different 

manufacturers producing 17 individual 

biobased products. These 11 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 2- 

cycle engine oils, merely those 

identified during USDA information 

gathering activities. Information 

supplied by these manufacturers 

indicates that many of these products 

have been tested against multiple 

industry performance standards and are 

being used commercially. While other 

applicable performance standards may 

exist, applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• ASTM D445–04e2, Standard Test 

Method for Kinematic Viscosity of 

Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and 

the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity); 

• ASTM D93–02a, Standard Test 

Methods for Flash-Point by PenskyMartens Closed Cup Tester; 

• ASTM D2896–05 Standard Test 

Method for Base Number of Petroleum 

Products by Potentiometric Perchloric 

Acid Titration; 

• ASTM D97–05, Standard Test 

Method for Pour Point of Petroleum 

Products; 

• ASTM D2500–02e1, Standard Test 

Method for Cloud Point of Petroleum 

Products; 

• ASTM D4682–87 (2002), Standard 

Specification for Miscibility with 

Gasoline and Fluidity of Two-StrokeCycle Gasoline Engine Lubricants; 

• CEC–L–33–T82 is comparable to 

ASTM 5864 and tests for 

biodegradability; 

• ASTM D2619, Standard Test 

Method for Hydrolytic Stability of 

Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle 

Method); 

• ASTM D892, Standard Test Method 

for Foaming Characteristics of 

Lubricating Oils; 

• ASTM D665, Standard Test Method 

for Rust-Preventing Characteristics of 

Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of 

Water; 

• ASTM D2270, Standard Practice for 

Calculating Viscosity Index From 

Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 °C; 

and 

• International Organization for 

Standardization #ISO GD Surface 

chemical analysis—Glow discharge 

optical emission spectrometry (GD–

OES). 

USDA contacted procurement 

officials with various procuring agencies 

including the General Services 

Administration, several offices within 

the Defense Logistics Agency, the OFEE, 

USDA Departmental Administration, 

the National Park Service, EPA, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, and OMB in 

an effort to gather information on the 

purchases of 2-cycle engine oils and 

products within the other nine items 

proposed for designation today. 

Communications with these officials 

lead to the conclusion that obtaining 

credible current usage statistics and 

specific potential markets within the 

Federal government for biobased 

products within the 10 proposed 

designated items is not possible at this 

time. Most of the contacted officials 

reported that procurement data are 

reported in higher level groupings of 

materials and supplies than the 

proposed designated items. Also, the 

purchasing of such materials as part of 

contracted services and with individual 

purchase cards used to purchase 

products locally further obscures 

credible data on purchases of specific 

products. 

USDA also investigated the Web site 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47596 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

unable to obtain data on the amount of 

2-cycle engine oils purchased by 

procuring agencies. However, Federal 

agencies routinely perform, or procure 

contract services such as lawn 

maintenance services, that utilize small 

gas powered devices. Thus, they have a 

need for 2-cycle engine oils and for 

services that require the use of 2-cycle 

engine oils. Designation of 2-cycle 

engine oils will promote the use of 

biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased 2-cycle engine oils was 

performed for three of the products 

using the BEES analytical tool. Table 1 

summarizes the BEES results for the 

three 2-cycle engine oils. As seen in 

Table 1, the environmental performance 

score, which includes human health, 

ranges from 0.0474 to 0.0661 points per 

gallon (mixed with fuel and ready to 

use). The environmental performance 

score indicates the share of annual per 

capita U.S. environmental impacts that 

is attributable to one gallon (mixed with 

fuel and ready to use) of the product, 

expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. For 

example, the total amount of criteria air 

pollutants emitted in the U.S. in one 

year was divided by the total U.S. 

population to derive a ‘‘criteria air 

pollutants per person value.’’ The 

production and use of one gallon (mixed 

with fuel and ready to use) of 2-cycle 

engine oil sample A was estimated to 

contribute 0.000002 percent of this 

value. 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR 2-CYCLE ENGINE OILS

Parameters 

2-Cycle engine oils 

Sample A Sample B Sample C 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ........................................................................... 0 .0474 0 .0485 0 .0661 

Acidification (5%) ............................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ................................................................................................................ 0 .0002 0 .0002 0 .0008 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) .................................................................................................................. 0 .0036 0 .0036 0 .0092 

Eutrophication (5%) ........................................................................................................................... 0 .0017 0 .0018 0 .0035 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................ 0 .0200 0 .0204 0 .0215 

Global Warming (16%) ...................................................................................................................... 0 .0060 0 .0061 0 .0080 

Habitat Alteration (16%) .................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Human Health (11%) ......................................................................................................................... 0 .0080 0 .0085 0 .0103 

Indoor Air (11%) ................................................................................................................................ 0 .0000 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ....................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Smog (6%) ......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0079 0 .0078 0 .0122 

Water Intake (3%) .............................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0001 0 .0006 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 ................................................................................ 2 .70 2 .95 4 .84 

First Cost ........................................................................................................................................... 2 .70 2 .95 4 .84 

Future Cost (3.9%) ............................................................................................................................ (3) (3) (3) 

Functional Unit ................................................................................................................................... 1 gallon (mixed with fuel and ready to use) 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 

When evaluating the information 

presented in Table 1, as well as in the 

subsequent tables presented in this 

preamble, it should be noted that 

comparisons of the environmental 

performance scores are valid only 

among products within a designated 

item. Thus, comparisons of the scores 

presented in Table 1 and the scores 

presented in tables for other proposed 

designated items are not meaningful. 

The numbers in parentheses following 

each of the 12 environmental impacts 

listed in the tables in this preamble 

indicate weighting factors. The 

weighting factors represent the relative 

importance of the 12 environmental 

impacts, including human health 

impacts, that contribute to the BEES 

Environmental Score. They are derived 

from lists of the relative importance of 

these impacts developed by the EPA 

Science Advisory Board for the purpose 

of advising EPA as to how best to 

allocate its limited resources among 

environmental impact areas. Note that a 

lower Environmental Performance score 

is better than a higher score. 

Life cycle costs presented in the tables 

in this preamble are per the appropriate 

functional unit for the proposed 

designated item. Future costs are 

discounted to present value using the 

OMB discount rate of 3.9 percent. 

The life cycle costs of the submitted 

2-cycle engine oils range from $2.70 to 

$4.84 (present value dollars) per gallon 

(mixed with fuel and ready to use). 

Present value dollars presented in this 

preamble represent the sum of all costs 

associated with a product over a fixed 

period of time, including any applicable 

costs for purchase, installation, 

replacement, operation, maintenance 

and repair, and disposal. Present value 

dollars presented in this preamble 

reflect 2005 dollars. Dollars are 

expressed in present value terms to 

adjust for the effects of inflation. The 

complete results of the BEES analysis, 

extrapolated to the item level, for each 

item proposed for designation in today’s 

proposed rulemaking can be found at 

http://www.biobased.oce.usda.gov. 

2. Lip Care Products 

Lip care products are personal care 

products formulated to replenish the 

moisture and/or prevent drying, thereby 

promoting better skin health of the lips. 

Biobased lip care products are typically 

formulated from natural soy or other 

seed-based oil feed stocks. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased lip care products, USDA 

identified 10 different manufacturers 

producing 28 individual biobased 

products. These 10 manufacturers do 

not necessarily include all 

manufacturers of biobased lip care 

products, merely those identified during 

USDA information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that these 

products are typically tested against an 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47597 

industry standard and are being used 

commercially. While other applicable 

performance standards may exist, 

applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• United States Pharmacopeia (USP) 

Stability Test. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

discussed in the section on 2-cycle 

engine oils. These attempts were largely 

unsuccessful. However, various Federal 

agencies procure personal care products 

for use by their employees. Thus, they 

have a need for lip care products. 

Designation of lip care products will 

promote the use of biobased products, 

furthering the objectives of this 

program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased lip care products was 

performed for two of the products using 

the BEES analytical tool. Table 2 

summarizes the BEES results for the two 

lip care products. As seen in Table 2, 

the environmental performance score, 

which includes human health, ranges 

from 0.1484 to 0.1778 points per case of 

lip balm (i.e., 2,380 tubes). The 

environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to one case of the product, 

expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR LIP CARE PRODUCTS

Parameters 

Lip care products 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ......................................................................................................... 0.1484 0.1778 

Acidification (5%) ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000 0.0000 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0007 0.0010 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0.0409 0.0447 

Eutrophication (5%) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0157 0.0101 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .............................................................................................................................................. 0.0412 0.0533 

Global Warming (16%) .................................................................................................................................................... 0.0136 0.0182 

Habitat Alteration (16%) .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000 0.0000 

Human Health (11%) ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0128 0.0180 

Indoor Air (11%) .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.0000 0.0000 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000 0.0000 

Smog (6%) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0076 0.0105 

Water Intake (3%) ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.0159 0.0220 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 2 ............................................................................................................... 1,071 2,356 

First Cost ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,071 2,356 

Future Cost (3.9%) .......................................................................................................................................................... (3) (3) 

Functional Unit ................................................................................................................................................................. one case (2,380 tubes) 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 

The life cycle costs of the submitted 

lip care products range from $1,071 to 

$2,356 (present value dollars) per case 

of lip balm. 

3. Biodegradable Films 

Biodegradable films are used in 

packaging, wrappings, linings, and other 

similar applications and are capable of 

meeting ASTM D6400 standards for 

biodegradability. For the purpose of 

defining this designated item, 

biodegradable films do not include films 

used for agricultural purposes (such as 

films that would be used to cover fields) 

and durable films. Durable films will be 

proposed as a separate item for 

preferred procurement. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased biodegradable films, 

USDA identified 15 different 

manufacturers producing 45 individual 

products. These 15 manufacturers do 

not necessarily include all 

manufacturers of biobased 

biodegradable films, merely those 

identified during USDA information 

gathering activities. Information 

supplied by these manufacturers 

indicates that these products are 

typically tested against one or more 

industry performance standards and are 

being used commercially. While other 

applicable performance standards may 

exist, applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• ASTM D6400, Standard 

Specification for Compostable Plastics; 

and 

• Deutsches Institut fur Normung, the 

German Institute for Standardization 

#DIN V 54900 Standard for testing the 

compostability of polymeric materials. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

discussed in the section on 2-cycle 

engine oils. These attempts were largely 

unsuccessful. However, Federal 

agencies routinely procure products, 

such as trash can liners, leaf collection 

bags, and packaging materials, that are 

made from biodegradable films. In 

addition, many Federal agencies 

contract for services involving the use of 

such products. Thus, they have a need 

for products made from biodegradable 

films and for services that use products 

made from biodegradable films. 

Designation of biodegradable films will 

promote the use of biobased products, 

furthering the objectives of this 

program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased biodegradable films 

was performed for two of the products 

using the BEES analytical tool. Table 3 

summarizes the BEES results for the two 

biobased biodegradable films. As seen 

in Table 3, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, ranges from 0.0150 to 

0.5682 points per kilogram of 

biodegradable film. The environmental 

performance score indicates the share of 

annual per capita U.S. environmental 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47598 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

impacts that is attributable to one kilogram of the product, expressed in 

100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR BIODEGRADABLE FILMS

Parameters Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .5682 0 .0150 

Acidification (5%) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0001 0 .0000 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0046 0 .0001 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0277 0 .0006 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0330 0 .0005 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .2052 0 .0084 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0717 0 .0020 

Habitat Alteration (16%) .............................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0893 0 .0020 

Indoor Air (11%) .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .1365 0 .0012 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0001 0 .0002 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 2 ........................................................................................................... 6 .60 8 .17 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 .60 8 .17 

Future Cost (3.9%) ...................................................................................................................................................... (3) (3) 

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. one kilogram 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

biodegradable films was $6.60 to $8.17 

(present value dollars) per kilogram of 

biodegradable film. 

4. Stationary Equipment Hydraulic 

Fluids 

Stationary equipment hydraulic fluids 

are hydraulic fluid products formulated 

for use in the hydraulic systems of 

stationary equipment. Products in this 

item act as a mechanical power 

transmission medium to replace mineral 

oils and to provide wear, rust, and 

oxidation protection for machine tools 

and equipment. Biobased stationary 

hydraulic fluids are typically 

formulated from natural soy, canola, or 

other seed oil-based feed stocks. 

Qualifying products within this item 

may overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: Re-refined 

lubricating oils. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in products 

and systems designed or procured for 

combat or combat-related missions and 

in spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

For biobased stationary equipment 

hydraulic fluids, USDA identified 20 

different manufacturers producing 66 

individual biobased products. These 20 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

stationary equipment hydraulic fluids, 

merely those identified during USDA 

information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that many of 

these products have been tested against 

multiple industry performance 

standards and are being used 

commercially. While other applicable 

performance standards may exist, 

applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• ASTM D1122–97a(2002), Standard 

Test Method for Density or Relative 

Density of Engine Coolant Concentrates 

and Engine Coolants By The 

Hydrometer; 

• ASTM D1298–99e2, Standard Test 

Method for Density, Relative Density 

(Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of 

Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum 

Products by Hydrometer Method; 

• ASTM D130–04, Standard Test 

Method for Corrosiveness to Copper 

from Petroleum Products by Copper 

Strip Test; 

• ASTM D1401–02, Standard Test 

Method for Water Separability of 

Petroleum Oils and Synthetic Fluids; 

• ASTM D1500–04a, Standard Test 

Method for ASTM Color of Petroleum 

Products (ASTM Color Scale); 

• ASTM D2266–01, Standard Test 

Method for Wear Preventive 

Characteristics of Lubricating Grease 

(Four-Ball Method); 

• ASTM D2270–04, Standard Practice 

for Calculating Viscosity Index From 

Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 °C; 

• ASTM D2272–02, Standard Test 

Method for Oxidation Stability of Steam 

Turbine Oils by Rotating Pressure 

Vessel; 

• ASTM D2532–03, Standard Test 

Method for Viscosity and Viscosity 

Change After Standing at Low 

Temperature of Aircraft Turbine 

Lubricants; 

• ASTM D2619–95(2002)e1, Standard 

Test Method for Hydrolytic Stability of 

Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle 

Method); 

• ASTM D287–92(2000)e1, Standard 

Test Method for API Gravity of Crude 

Petroleum and Petroleum Products 

(Hydrometer Method); 

• ASTM D2983–04a, Standard Test 

Method for Low-Temperature Viscosity 

of Lubricants Measured by Brookfield 

Viscometer; 

• ASTM D4052–96(2002)e1, Standard 

Test Method for Density and Relative 

Density of Liquids by Digital Density 

Meter; 

• ASTM D4172–94(2004), Standard 

Test Method for Wear Preventive 

Characteristics of Lubricating Fluid 

(Four-Ball Method); 

• ASTM D445–04e2, Standard Test 

Method for Kinematic Viscosity of 

Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and 

the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity); 

• ASTM D567–53(1955), Method for 

Calculating Viscosity Index (Withdrawn 

1966); 

• ASTM D5864–00, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Aerobic 

Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or 

Their Components; and 

• ASTM D665–03, Standard Test 

Method for Rust-Preventing 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47599 

Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil 

in the Presence of Water. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

discussed in the section on 2-cycle 

engine oils. These attempts were largely 

unsuccessful. However, Federal 

agencies routinely own and operate 

stationary equipment with hydraulic 

cylinders. In addition, many Federal 

agencies contract for services involving 

the use of such equipment. Thus, they 

have a need for stationary equipment 

hydraulic fluids and for services that 

require the use of stationary equipment 

hydraulic fluids. Designation of 

stationary equipment hydraulic fluids 

will promote the use of biobased 

products, furthering the objectives of 

this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of stationary equipment hydraulic 

fluids was performed for two of the 

products using the BEES analytical tool. 

Table 4 summarizes the BEES results for 

the two stationary equipment hydraulic 

fluids. As seen in Table 4, the 

environmental performance score, 

which includes human health, ranges 

from 0.0042 to 0.0524 points per gallon 

of hydraulic fluid. The environmental 

performance score indicates the share of 

annual per capita U.S. environmental 

impacts that is attributable to one gallon 

of hydraulic fluid, expressed in 100ths 

of 1 percent. 

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR STATIONARY EQUIPMENT HYDRAULIC FLUIDS

Parameters 

Stationary equipment 

hydraulic fluids 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0042 0 .0524 

Acidification (5%) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0002 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0012 0 .0093 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 0 .0181 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0012 0 .0063 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0008 0 .0054 

Habitat Alteration (16%) .............................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0004 0 .0012 

Indoor Air (11%) .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 0 .0045 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0002 0 .0074 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 10 .45 8 .75 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 .45 8 .75 

Future Cost (3.9%) ...................................................................................................................................................... (3) (3) 

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. one gallon 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

stationary equipment hydraulic fluids 

range from $8.75 to $10.45 (present 

value dollars) per gallon of hydraulic 

fluid. 

5. Biodegradable Cutlery 

Biodegradable cutlery is a group of 

products that is used as hand-held, 

disposable utensils designed for onetime use in eating food and that is 

capable of meeting ASTM D5338 

standard for biodegradability. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased biodegradable cutlery, 

USDA identified 7 different 

manufacturers producing 15 individual 

biobased products. These 7 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

biodegradable cutlery, merely those 

identified during USDA information 

gathering activities. Information 

supplied by these manufacturers 

indicates that these products are 

typically tested against one or more 

industry performance standards and are 

being used commercially. While other 

applicable performance standards may 

exist, applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• ASTM D5338, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Aerobic 

Biodegradation of Plastic Materials 

Under Controlled Composting 

Conditions; 

• ASTM D6400, Standard 

Specification for Compostable Plastics; 

• D5209–92, Standard Test Method 

for Determining the Aerobic 

Biodegradation of Plastic Materials in 

the Presence of Municipal Sewage 

Sludge (Discontinued 2001); and 

• Deutsches Institut fur Normung, the 

German Institute for Standardization 

#DIN CERTCO 54900 Standard for 

testing the compostability of polymeric 

materials. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

discussed in the section on 2-cycle 

engine oils. These attempts were largely 

unsuccessful. However, many Federal 

agencies routinely perform, or procure 

contract services to perform, food 

preparation and distribution activities 

that utilize disposable cutlery. Thus, 

they have a need for disposable cutlery 

and for services that require the use of 

disposable cutlery. Designation of 

biodegradable cutlery will promote the 

use of biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased biodegradable cutlery 

was performed for two of the products 

using the BEES analytical tool. Table 5 

summarizes the BEES results for the two 

biodegradable cutlery products. As seen 

in Table 5, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, ranges from 0.0565 to 

0.0690 points per 1000 pieces of cutlery. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47600 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

The environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to 1,000 pieces of cutlery, 

expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR BIODEGRADABLE CUTLERY

Parameters 

Biodegradable cutlery 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0565 0 .0690 

Acidification (5%) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 0 .0005 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0113 0 .0021 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0052 0 .0014 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0236 0 .0440 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0056 0 .0085 

Habitat Alteration (16%) .............................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0065 0 .0079 

Indoor Air (11%) .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0024 0 .0035 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0017 0 .0011 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 32 .00 32 .00 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32 .00 32 .00 

Future Cost (3.9%) ...................................................................................................................................................... (3) (3) 

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 pieces of cutlery 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

biodegradable cutlery was $32 present 

value dollars) per 1,000 pieces of 

cutlery. 

6. Glass Cleaners 

Glass cleaners are products designed 

for use in cleaning glass surfaces such 

as mirrors, car windows, and computer 

monitors. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

Procuring agencies should note that, 

as discussed in section II of this 

preamble, not all biobased cleaning 

products are ‘‘environmentally 

preferable’’ to non-biobased products. 

Unless cleaning products have been 

formulated to contain no (or reduced 

levels of) metals and toxic and 

hazardous constituents, they can be 

harmful to aquatic life, the environment, 

or workers. When purchasing 

environmentally preferable cleaning 

products, Federal agencies must 

compare the ‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ impacts 

of the manufacture, use, and disposal of 

both biobased and non-biobased 

products. 

For biobased glass cleaners, USDA 

identified 16 different manufacturers 

producing 19 individual biobased 

products. These 16 manufacturers do 

not necessarily include all 

manufacturers of biobased glass 

cleaners, merely those identified during 

USDA information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that these 

products are typically tested against one 

relevant measure of performance and 

are being used commercially. While 

applicable performance standards and 

other measures of performance may 

exist, applicable industry performance 

standards and relevant measures of 

performance against which these 

products have been typically tested, as 

identified by manufacturers of products 

within this item and by others, include: 

• U.S. Navy, Navsea 6840 Surface 

Ship (Non-Submarine) Authorized 

Chemical Cleaning Products and 

Dispensing Systems. 

• Green Seal, GS–37, Environmental 

Standard for General Purpose, 

Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners 

used for Industrial and Institutional 

Purposes. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

discussed in the section on 2-cycle 

engine oils. These attempts were largely 

unsuccessful. However, Federal 

agencies routinely procure cleaning and 

maintenance services and materials, 

including glass cleaners. Thus, they 

have a need for glass cleaners and for 

services that require the use of glass 

cleaners. Designation of glass cleaners 

will promote the use of biobased 

products, furthering the objectives of 

this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased glass cleaners was 

performed for two of the products using 

the BEES analytical tool. Table 6 

summarizes the BEES results for the two 

glass cleaners. As seen in Table 6, the 

environmental performance score, 

which includes human health, ranges 

from 0.08787 to 0.9818 points per 1,000 

gallons of biobased glass cleaner, 

diluted and ready to use. The 

environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to 1,000 gallons of glass 

cleaner, diluted and ready to use, 

expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47601 

TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR GLASS CLEANERS

Parameters 

Glass cleaners 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0878 0 .9818 

Acidification (5%) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0001 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0008 0 .0064 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0092 0 .0578 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0021 0 .0124 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0310 0 .3953 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0078 0 .1317 

Habitat Alteration (16%) .............................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0108 0 .1840 

Indoor Air (11%) .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0042 0 .0492 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0219 0 .1449 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 89 .06 983 .00 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 89 .06 983 .00 

Future Cost (3.9%) ...................................................................................................................................................... (3) (3) 

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 gallons, diluted and 

ready to use. 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

glass cleaners range from $89 to $983 

(present value dollars) per 1,000 gallons 

of glass cleaner, diluted and ready to 

use. 

7. Greases 

Greases are lubricants composed of 

oils thickened with soaps or other 

thickeners to a semisolid or solid 

consistency. Grease composition (i.e., 

greases made with clay thickeners 

versus those made with metallic soap 

thickeners) must be considered carefully 

because of potential incompatibility 

when mixed. This can occur between 

two different biobased greases, between 

two different non-biobased (petroleum) 

greases, and between a biobased grease 

and a petroleum-based grease. 

Machinery lubricated with one 

particular type of grease must be purged 

properly before lubrication with an 

incompatible grease. 

Greases are used in many different 

applications. Based on the information 

acquired, USDA is proposing to 

subcategorize this item into four 

specified-use subcategories and one 

‘‘not elsewhere specified’’ subcategory 

as follows: Food grade greases, 

multipurpose greases, rail track greases, 

fifth wheel (coupling plate between the 

tractor trailer truck and the semi-trailer) 

greases, and greases that do not fit any 

of the other four subcategories. USDA 

believes this is reasonable because of 

the varying conditions that each of the 

four specified-use subcategories require 

of greases in order to perform 

satisfactorily and in accordance with 

any regulatory requirements (e.g., for 

food grade greases). 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in products 

and systems designed or procured for 

combat or combat-related missions and 

in spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

For biobased greases, USDA identified 

18 different manufacturers producing 67 

individual biobased products. For the 

five subcategories of greases for which 

USDA is proposing designation, USDA 

identified at least two manufacturers of 

each type. The 18 manufacturers total, 

and those identified for each 

subcategory of grease, do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

greases, merely those identified during 

USDA information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that several of 

these products have been tested against 

multiple industry performance 

standards and are being used 

commercially. While other applicable 

performance standards may exist, 

applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• ASTM D1264–03e1, Standard Test 

Method for Determining the Water 

Washout Characteristics of Lubricating 

Greases; 

• ASTM D127–05, Standard Test 

Method for Drop Melting Point of 

Petroleum Wax, Including Petrolatum; 

• ASTM D130–04, Standard Test 

Method for Corrosiveness to Copper 

from Petroleum Products by Copper 

Strip Test; 

• ASTM D1742–94 (2000)e1, 

Standard Test Method for Oil 

Separation from Lubricating Grease 

During Storage; 

• ASTM D1743–05a, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Corrosion 

Preventive Properties of Lubricating 

Greases; 

• ASTM D1748–02, Standard Test 

Method for Rust Protection by Metal 

Preservatives in the Humidity Cabinet; 

• ASTM D1831–00e1, Standard Test 

Method for Roll Stability of Lubricating 

Grease; 

• ASTM D217–02, Standard Test 

Methods for Cone Penetration of 

Lubricating Grease; 

• ASTM D2265–00, Standard Test 

Method for Dropping Point of 

Lubricating Grease Over Wide 

Temperature Range; 

• ASTM D2266–01, Standard Test 

Method for Wear Preventive 

Characteristics of Lubricating Grease 

(Four-Ball Method); 

• ASTM D2270–04, Standard Practice 

for Calculating Viscosity Index From 

Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 °C; 

• ASTM D2509–03, Standard Test 

Method for Measurement of LoadCarrying Capacity of Lubricating Grease 

(Timken Method); 

• ASTM D2569–97 (2002), Standard 

Test Method for Distillation of Pitch; 

• ASTM D2596–97 (2002)e1, 

Standard Test Method for Measurement 

of Extreme-Pressure Properties of 

Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method); 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47602 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

• ASTM D445–04e2, Standard Test 

Method for Kinematic Viscosity of 

Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and 

the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity); 

• ASTM D566–02, Standard Test 

Method for Dropping Point of 

Lubricating Grease; 

• ASTM D5864–00, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Aerobic 

Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or 

Their Components; 

• ASTM D6184–98, Standard Test 

Method for Oil Separation from 

Lubricating Grease (Conical Sieve 

Method); 

• ASTM D92–05a, Standard Test 

Method for Flash and Fire Points by 

Cleveland Open Cup Tester; 

• ASTM D942–02, Standard Test 

Method for Oxidation Stability of 

Lubricating Greases by the Oxygen 

Bomb Method; 

• ASTM D97–05, Standard Test 

Method for Pour Point of Petroleum 

Products; 

• Co-ordinating European Council 

#CEC–L–33–A–93 Test to predict the 

potential biodegradation of mineral oilbased lubricants in soil; and 

• National Lubricating Grease 

Institute #NLGI 2 Greases classified 

according to their consistency range as 

measured by the worked penetration at 

25 °C (77 °C): 265 to 295. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

discussed in the section on 2-cycle 

engine oils. These attempts were largely 

unsuccessful. However, Federal 

agencies routinely operate, or procure 

contract services to operate, the types of 

machinery and equipment that require 

the use of greases. Thus, they have a 

need for greases and for services that 

require the use of greases. Designation 

of greases will promote the use of 

biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased greases was performed 

for two of the products using the BEES 

analytical tool. Table 7 summarizes the 

BEES results for the two greases. As 

seen in Table 7, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, ranges from 0.0281 to 

0.0451 points per gallon of grease. The 

environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to one gallon of grease, 

expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR GREASES

Parameters 

Greases 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0281 0 .0451 

Acidification (5%) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 0 .0002 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0036 0 .0103 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0026 0 .0126 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0105 0 .0067 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0042 0 .0046 

Habitat Alteration (16%) .............................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0035 0 .0022 

Indoor Air (11%) .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0022 0 .0034 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0013 0 .0051 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 14 .84 52 .03 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14 .84 52 .03 

Future Cost (3.9%) ...................................................................................................................................................... (3) (3) 

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. one gallon 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

greases range from $14.84 to $52.03 

(present value dollars) per gallon of 

grease. 

8. Dust Suppressants 

Dust suppressants are products 

formulated to reduce or eliminate the 

spread of dust associated with gravel 

roads, dirt parking lots, or similar 

sources of dust, and include products 

used in equivalent indoor applications 

(such as in indoor arenas where dirt 

parking lots may be found). This item 

does not cover products designed for 

indoor uses (such as the application of 

a dust suppressant to a dust mop), 

except as noted above. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in products 

and systems designed or procured for 

combat or combat-related missions and 

in spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

For biobased dust suppressants, 

USDA identified 12 different 

manufacturers producing 13 individual 

biobased products. These 12 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

dust suppressants, merely those 

identified during USDA information 

gathering activities. Information 

supplied by these manufacturers 

indicates that these products are 

typically tested against one or more 

industry performance standards and are 

being used commercially. While other 

applicable performance standards may 

exist, applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• Missouri State Specifications; and 

• Water runoff quality test (Minnesota 

DOT). 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

discussed in the section on 2-cycle 

engine oils. These attempts were largely 

unsuccessful. However, Federal 

agencies routinely use, or procure 

contract services that use, dust 

suppressants in construction, forestry, 

transportation, and maintenance 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47603 

activities. Thus, they have a need for 

dust suppressants and for services that 

require the use of dust suppressants. 

Designation of dust suppressants will 

promote the use of biobased products, 

furthering the objectives of this 

program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased dust suppressants was 

performed for two of the products using 

the BEES analytical tool. Table 8 

summarizes the BEES results for the two 

dust suppressants. As seen in Table 8, 

the environmental performance score, 

which includes human health, ranges 

from 0.0335 to 0.7545 points per 1,000 

square feet of application. The 

environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to 1,000 square feet of 

application, expressed in 100ths of 1 

percent. 

TABLE 8.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR DUST SUPPRESSANTS

Parameters 

Dust suppressants 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0335 0 .7545 

Acidification (5%) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 0 .0052 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0194 0 .1417 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0015 0 .1238 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0048 0 .2064 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0024 0 .0965 

Habitat Alteration (16%) .............................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0025 0 .0737 

Indoor Air (11%) .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0010 0 .0421 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0017 0 .0651 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 7 .20 47 .00 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 .20 47 .00 

Future Cost (3.9%) ...................................................................................................................................................... (3) (3) 

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 square feet of 

application. 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

dust suppressants range from $7.20 to 

$47 (present value dollars) per 1,000 

square feet of application. 

9. Carpets 

Carpets are floor coverings composed 

of woven fibers, with a backing. 

Qualifying products within this item 

may overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: Carpet 

(polyester). 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased carpets, USDA identified 

7 different manufacturers producing 19 

individual biobased products. These 7 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

carpets, merely those identified during 

USDA information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that these 

products are typically tested against one 

or more industry performance standards 

and are being used commercially. While 

other applicable performance standards 

may exist, applicable industry 

performance standards against which 

these products have been typically 

tested, as identified by manufacturers of 

products within this item, include: 

• Aachen Test, ISO/EN Dimensional 

Stability: Machine-made textile floor 

coverings—Determination of 

dimensional changes due to the effects 

of varied water and heat conditions; 

• American Association of Textile 

Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness 

AATCC 165 Crocking: Textile Floor 

Coverings—AATCC Crockmeter 

Method; 

• American Association of Textile 

Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness 

AATCC 164 Oxides of Nitrogen in the 

Atmosphere under High Humidities; 

• American Association of Textile 

Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness 

AATCC 129 Ozone in the Atmosphere 

under High Humidities; 

• American Association of Textile 

Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness 

AATCC 138 Cleaning: Washing of 

Textile Floor Coverings; 

• American Association of Textile 

Chemists and Colorists #Color Fastness 

AATCC 107 Water; 

• ASTM D1335, Standard Test 

Method for Tuft Bind of Pile Yarn Floor 

Coverings; and 

• ASTM D3936, Standard Test 

Method for Resistance to Delamination 

of the Secondary Backing of Pile Yarn 

Floor Covering. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

discussed in the section on 2-cycle 

engine oils. USDA found that in fiscal 

year 2005 approximately $34 million of 

carpet were purchased on GSA 

schedule, of which $5.2 million met the 

recycled content as defined by 

Executive Order 13101. While it is 

unknown what percentage of total 

carpet purchased by the Federal 

government the $34 million represents, 

it is clear that Federal agencies purchase 

and install large volumes of carpets. 

Designation of carpets, therefore, will 

promote the use of biobased products, 

furthering the objectives of this 

program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased carpets was performed 

for two of the products using the BEES 

analytical tool. Table 9 summarizes the 

BEES results for the two carpets. As 

seen in Table 9, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47604 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

human health, was 0.2429 per 1 square 

yard of carpet over 50 years for both 

samples. The environmental 

performance score indicates the share of 

annual per capita U.S. environmental 

impacts that is attributable to one square 

yard of carpet over 50 years, expressed 

in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 9.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR CARPETS

Parameters 

Carpets 

Sample A 

Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ............................................................................................................. 0 .2429 

Acidification (5%) ................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0014 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) .................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0165 

Eutrophication (5%) ............................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0112 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .................................................................................................................................................. 0 .1028 

Global Warming (16%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0240 

Habitat Alteration (16%) ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 

Human Health (11%) ........................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0278 

Indoor Air (11%) .................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0377 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 

Smog (6%) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0079 

Water Intake (3%) ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0136 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .................................................................................................................. 39 .22

First Cost ............................................................................................................................................................................. 20 .00

Future Cost (3.9%) .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 .22

Functional Unit ..................................................................................................................................................................... one square yard 

over 50 years 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

The life cycle cost of both submitted 

carpets was $39.22 per square yard of 

carpet over 50 years. 

10. Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners 

Carpet and upholstery cleaners are 

products used to clean carpets and 

upholstery, through a dry or wet 

process, found in locations such as 

houses, cars, and workplaces. As 

proposed, this item does not include 

spot cleaners. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased carpet and upholstery 

cleaners, USDA identified 13 different 

manufacturers producing 17 individual 

biobased products. These 13 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

carpet and upholstery cleaners, merely 

those identified during USDA 

information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that these 

products are typically tested against one 

relevant measure of performance and 

are being used commercially. While 

other relevant measurements of 

performance may exist, applicable 

relevant measurements of performance 

against which these products have been 

typically tested, as identified by 

manufacturers of products within this 

item, include: 

• U.S. Navy, Navsea 6840 Surface 

Ship (Non-Submarine) Authorized 

Chemical Cleaning Products and 

Dispensing Systems. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

discussed in the section on 2-cycle 

engine oils. These attempts were largely 

unsuccessful. However, Federal 

agencies routinely perform, and procure 

services that perform, the types of 

cleaning activities that utilize carpet 

and upholstery cleaners. Thus, they 

have a need for carpet and upholstery 

cleaners and for services that require the 

use of carpet and upholstery cleaners. 

Designation of carpet and upholstery 

cleaners will promote the use of 

biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased carpet and upholstery 

cleaners was performed for two of the 

products using the BEES analytical tool. 

Table 10 summarizes the BEES results 

for the two carpet and upholstery 

cleaners. As seen in Table 10, the 

environmental performance score, 

which includes human health, ranges 

from 0.0898 to 0.1542 points per 1,000 

square feet of carpet cleaned. The 

environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to 1,000 square feet of 

carpet cleaned, expressed in 100ths of 1 

percent. 

TABLE 10.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY CLEANERS

Parameters 

Carpet and upholstery 

cleaners 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0898 0 .1542 

Acidification (5%) ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0007 0 .0015 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0069 0 .0124 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0007 0 .0016 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0330 0 .0733 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47605 

1ASTM 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. 

TABLE 10.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR CARPET AND UPHOLSTERY CLEANERS—Continued 

Parameters 

Carpet and upholstery 

cleaners 

Sample A Sample B 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0101 0 .0233 

Habitat Alteration (16%) .............................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0164 0 .0370 

Indoor Air (11%) .......................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0196 0 .0000 

Ozone Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0024 0 .0049 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0000 0 .0002 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 2 ........................................................................................................... 20 .29 4 .55 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20 .29 4 .55 

Future Cost (3.9%) ...................................................................................................................................................... (3) (3) 

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. 1,000 square feet of carpet 

cleaned. 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

carpet and upholstery cleaners range 

from $4.55 to $20.29 (present value 

dollars) per 1,000 square feet of carpet 

cleaned. Based on information supplied 

by the manufacturers, USDA has 

confirmed that the qualifying biobased 

content in each of the samples tested is 

derived, in whole or in significant part, 

from renewable domestic agricultural or 

forestry material. 

C. Minimum Biobased Contents 

Section 9002(e)(1)(C) directs USDA to 

recommend minimum biobased content 

levels where appropriate. In today’s 

proposed rulemaking, USDA is 

proposing minimum biobased product 

content for each of the 10 items 

proposed for designation based on 

information currently available to 

USDA. 

As discussed in Section IV.A of this 

preamble, USDA relied entirely on 

manufacturers’ voluntary submission of 

samples to support the proposed 

designation of these 10 items. The data 

presented in the following paragraphs 

are the test results from all of the 

product samples that were submitted for 

analysis. It is the responsibility of the 

manufacturers to ‘‘self-certify’’ that each 

product being offered as a biobased 

product for preferred procurement 

contains qualifying feedstock. As 

contained in the Guidelines, USDA will 

consider qualifying feedstocks for 

biobased products originating in 

‘‘designated countries’’ (as that term is 

defined in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) § 25.003)) as well as 

from the United States. USDA will 

develop a monitoring process for these 

self-certifications to ensure 

manufacturers are using qualifying 

feedstocks. If misrepresentations are 

found, USDA will remove the subject 

biobased product from the preferred 

procurement program and may take 

further actions as deemed appropriate. 

As a result of public comments 

received on the first designated items 

rulemaking proposal, USDA decided to 

account for the slight imprecision in the 

analytical method used to determine 

biobased content of products when 

establishing the minimum biobased 

content. Thus, rather than establishing 

the minimum biobased content for an 

item at the tested biobased content of 

the product selected as the basis for the 

minimum value, USDA is establishing 

the minimum biobased content at a 

level 3 percentage points less than the 

tested value. USDA believes that this 

adjustment is appropriate to account for 

the expected variations in analytical 

results. 

USDA has determined that setting a 

minimum biobased content for 

designated items is appropriate. 

Establishing a minimum biobased 

content will encourage competition 

among manufacturers to develop 

products with higher biobased contents 

and will prevent products with de 

minimus biobased content from being 

purchased as a means of satisfying the 

requirements of section 9002. USDA 

believes that it is in the best interest of 

the preferred procurement program for 

minimum biobased contents to be set at 

levels that will realistically allow 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow them 

to compete with non-biobased products 

in performance and economics. Setting 

the minimum biobased content for an 

item at a level met by several of the 

tested products will provide more 

products from which procurement 

officials may choose, will encourage the 

most widespread usage of biobased 

products by procuring agencies, and is 

expected to accomplish the objectives of 

section 9002. Procuring agencies are 

encouraged to seek products with the 

highest biobased content that is 

practicable in all 10 of the proposed 

designated items. 

The following paragraphs summarize 

the information that USDA used to 

propose minimum biobased contents 

within each proposed designated item. 

1. 2-Cycle Engine Oils 

Seven of the 17 biobased 2-cycle 

engine oils identified have been tested 

for biobased content using ASTM 

D6866.1 The biobased content of these 

7 samples ranged from 6 percent to 77 

percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 7 percent, based on the product with 

a tested biobased content of 10 percent. 

USDA evaluated the manufacturer’s 

performance claims for the product 

whose biobased content was tested at 6 

percent. The available information for 

this product did not indicate any unique 

performance characteristics or features 

not found in products with a higher 

biobased content. Therefore, USDA 

dropped this product from 

consideration in setting the minimum 

biobased content for the item. USDA 

found that the product with 10 percent 

biobased content, the second-lowest 

tested value, was formulated to meet the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47606 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

specifications of Japanese small engine 

manufacturers. None of the other 

products tested made this claim or 

indicated that they had been tested 

using the Japanese performance 

standards. Because of the predominance 

of Japanese engines in the marketplace, 

USDA believes that establishing a 

minimum biobased content for this item 

based on a product formulated to meet 

their performance specifications is 

reasonable. To account for possible 

variability in the results of ASTM 

D6866, as discussed earlier, the tested 

10 percent value was then adjusted to 7 

percent. 

2. Lip Care Products 

Two of the 28 available biobased lip 

care products have been tested for 

biobased content using ASTM D6866. 

The biobased content of these two lip 

care products was 85 percent and 88 

percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 82 percent, based on the product with 

a tested biobased content of 85 percent. 

While no differences were found in the 

performance of the two products tested, 

USDA believes that the slight difference 

between the biobased content of two 

products tested is insignificant. Also, 

establishing the minimum biobased 

content for the item based on the lower 

tested value offers procurement agents 

more choice in selecting products to 

purchase. 

3. Biodegradable Films 

Thirteen of the 45 biobased 

biodegradable films identified have 

been tested for biobased content using 

ASTM D6866. The biobased content of 

these 13 biodegradable films ranged 

from 1 percent to 96 percent. USDA will 

not establish the minimum biobased 

content for a designated item based on 

products with essentially no biobased 

content; that is, in this instance, on 

either the product with a tested 

biobased content of 1 percent or the 

product with a tested biobased content 

of 2 percent. The biobased content of 

the remaining 11 products ranged from 

25 percent to 96 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 22 percent, based on the product with 

a tested biobased content of 25 percent. 

The manufacturer of the product with 

the biobased content of 25 percent also 

manufactures biodegradable films with 

48 and 52 percent biobased content. The 

product with 25 percent biobased 

content has a significantly longer shelflife than the other products. Because 

Federal procuring agencies are likely to 

purchase biodegradable films in larger 

quantities than the average consumer, 

USDA believes that shelf-life is a key 

performance criteria for establishing the 

minimum biobased content of this item. 

Therefore, USDA is proposing to 

establish the minimum biobased content 

for this item based on this particular 

product. Furthermore, establishing the 

minimum biobased content level at this 

level will offer procuring agencies more 

choices in selecting products to 

purchase and will encourage the most 

widespread usage of biobased products 

by procuring agencies. 

4. Stationary Equipment Hydraulic 

Fluids 

Twenty two of the 66 biobased 

stationary equipment hydraulic fluids 

identified have been tested for biobased 

content using ASTM D6866. The 

biobased content of these 22 biobased 

stationary equipment hydraulic fluids 

ranged from 49 percent to 100 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 46 percent, based on the product with 

a tested biobased content of 49. 

Stationary equipment hydraulic fluids 

can be formulated to meet a wide range 

of demands. Because of the resulting 

range in product characteristics, USDA 

is proposing to set the minimum 

biobased content at a level that will 

include all of the products sampled. 

USDA believes that it is in the best 

interest of the preferred procurement 

program for minimum biobased 

contents to be set at levels that will 

realistically allow products to possess 

the necessary performance attributes 

and allow them to compete with nonbiobased products in performance and 

economics. Furthermore, setting the 

minimum biobased content level based 

on the lowest level found among the 

sampled products will offer procuring 

agencies more choices in selecting 

products to purchase and will 

encourage the most widespread usage of 

biobased products by procuring 

agencies. 

5. Biodegradable Cutlery 

Five of the 15 biobased biodegradable 

cutlery identified have been tested for 

biobased content using ASTM D6866. 

The biobased contents of these five 

biobased biodegradable products ranged 

from 36 percent to 100 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 33 percent, based on the product with 

a tested biobased content of 36 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the minimum 

biobased content at a level that will 

include all of the products sampled. 

USDA believes that it is in the best 

interest of the preferred procurement 

program for minimum biobased 

contents to be set at levels that will 

realistically allow products to possess 

the necessary performance attributes 

and allow them to compete with nonbiobased products in performance and 

economics. Furthermore, setting the 

minimum biobased content level based 

on the lowest level found among the 

sampled products will offer procuring 

agencies more choices in selecting 

products to purchase and will 

encourage the most widespread usage of 

biobased products by procuring 

agencies. 

6. Glass Cleaners 

Seven of the 19 biobased glass 

cleaners identified have been tested for 

biobased content using ASTM D6866. 

The biobased contents of these glass 

cleaners ranged from 0 percent to 67 

percent. The products with tested 

biobased contents of 0 and 1 percent 

were not considered in establishing the 

minimum biobased content for this 

proposed designated item. The one 

product whose tested biobased content 

was 0 percent was eliminated from 

consideration because, according to the 

results of the analysis, the product 

would not be considered a biobased 

product. Further, USDA will not 

establish the minimum biobased content 

for a designated item based on products 

with essentially no biobased content; 

that is, in this instance on a product 

with a tested biobased content of 1 

percent. The biobased content of the 

remaining five products ranged from 26 

percent to 67 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 23 percent, based on the product with 

a tested biobased content of 26 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the minimum 

biobased content at a level that will 

include all of the products sampled. 

USDA believes that it is in the best 

interest of the preferred procurement 

program for minimum biobased 

contents to be set at levels that will 

realistically allow products to possess 

the necessary performance attributes 

and allow them to compete with nonbiobased products in performance and 

economics. Furthermore, setting the 

minimum biobased content level based 

on the lowest level found among the 

sampled products will offer procuring 

agencies more choices in selecting 

products to purchase and will 

encourage the most widespread usage of 

biobased products by procuring 

agencies. 

7. Greases 

Eighteen of the 67 biobased greases 

identified have been tested for biobased 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47607 

content using ASTM D6866. For the five 

proposed subcategories of greases, the 

results obtained and the proposed 

minimum biobased contents are 

discussed in the following paragraphs 

by proposed grease subcategory. 

Food grade greases. The biobased 

content was measured for three food 

grade greases. The tested biobased 

contents were 45, 62, and 95 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for food 

grade greases at 42 percent, based on the 

product with a tested biobased content 

of 45 percent. USDA believes that it is 

in the best interest of the preferred 

procurement program for minimum 

biobased contents to be set at levels that 

will realistically allow products to 

possess the necessary performance 

attributes and allow them to compete 

with non-biobased products in 

performance and economics. Setting the 

minimum biobased content level based 

on the lowest level found among the 

sampled products will offer procuring 

agencies more choices in selecting 

products to purchase and will 

encourage the most widespread usage of 

biobased products by procuring 

agencies. 

Multipurpose greases. The biobased 

content was measured for three 

multipurpose greases. The tested 

biobased contents were 76, 76, and 76 

percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for food 

grade greases at 73 percent, based on the 

tested biobased content of 76 percent for 

all three multipurpose greases. 

Rail track greases. The biobased 

content was measured for six rail track 

greases. The tested biobased contents 

ranged from 33 percent to 66 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for rail track 

greases at 30 percent, based on the two 

products with a tested biobased content 

of 33 percent. The range in biobased 

contents is due to formulations 

necessary to meet seasonal 

requirements. Because one would not 

use a rail track grease formulated for 

winter use in the summer (and viceversa), USDA does not believe it is 

necessary to subdivide this item. 

Instead, USDA believes that it is 

appropriate to set a single minimum 

biobased content and is proposing to set 

it based on the lowest tested biobased 

content. By doing so, USDA believes 

that it is setting a minimum biobased 

content level that will realistically allow 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow them 

to compete with non-biobased products 

in performance and economics, which is 

in the best interests of this program. 

Further, setting the minimum biobased 

content level based on the lowest level 

found among the sampled products will 

offer procuring agencies more choices in 

selecting products to purchase and will 

encourage the most widespread usage of 

biobased products by procuring 

agencies. 

Truck greases. The biobased content 

was measured for three truck greases. 

The tested biobased contents were 75, 

77, and 77 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for truck 

greases at 72 percent, based on the 

product with a tested biobased content 

of 77 percent. USDA believes that the 

slight difference between the biobased 

content of three products tested is 

insignificant, and establishing the 

minimum biobased content for the item 

based on the lower tested value offers 

procurement agents more choice in 

selecting truck grease products to 

purchase. 

Greases not elsewhere specified. The 

biobased content was measured for four 

greases that did not fit any of the four 

specified subcategories. The tested 

biobased contents ranged from 78 

percent to 96 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for greases 

not elsewhere specified at 75 percent, 

based on the product with a tested 

biobased content of 78 percent. Because 

of the nature of this subcategory, grease 

products within it will be formulated to 

meet a wide range of demands. Because 

of the resulting range in product 

characteristics, USDA is proposing to 

set the minimum biobased content at a 

level that will include all of these 

‘‘other’’ grease products sampled. USDA 

believes that it is in the best interest of 

the preferred procurement program for 

minimum biobased contents to be set at 

levels that will realistically allow 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow these 

‘‘other’’ grease products to compete with 

non-biobased products in performance 

and economics. Furthermore, setting the 

minimum biobased content level based 

on the lowest level found among the 

sampled ‘‘other’’ grease products will 

offer procuring agencies more choices in 

selecting products to purchase and will 

encourage the most widespread usage of 

biobased products by procuring 

agencies. 

8. Dust Suppressants 

Five of the 13 biobased dust 

suppressants identified have been tested 

for biobased content using ASTM 

D6866. The biobased contents of these 

5 biobased dust suppressants ranged 

from 69 percent to 100 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 66 percent, based on the product with 

a tested biobased content of 69 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the minimum 

biobased content at a level that will 

include all of the products sampled, 

including the product with 69 percent 

biobased content, which is the only one 

of the products that is formulated 

specifically as a concentrate to be mixed 

with water. USDA believes that it is in 

the best interest of the preferred 

procurement program for minimum 

biobased contents to be set at levels that 

will realistically allow products to 

possess the necessary performance 

attributes and allow them to compete 

with non-biobased products in 

performance and economics. 

Furthermore, setting the minimum 

biobased content level based on the 

lowest level found among the sampled 

products will offer procuring agencies 

more choices in selecting products to 

purchase and will encourage the most 

widespread usage of biobased products 

by procuring agencies. 

9. Carpet 

Nine of the 19 biobased carpet 

identified have been tested for biobased 

content using ASTM D6866. The testing 

was conducted on the entire carpet 

samples (i.e., face and backing). The 

biobased content of these nine biobased 

carpets ranged from 0 percent to 37 

percent. The two products whose tested 

biobased content was 0 percent was 

eliminated from consideration because, 

according to the results of the analysis, 

the product would not be considered a 

biobased product. The biobased content 

of the remaining 7 products ranged from 

10 percent to 37 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 7 percent, based on the product with 

a tested biobased content of 10 percent. 

For each of the carpet samples tested, 

the biobased component of the carpets 

sampled was the material used as the 

carpet backing. The sampled products 

with a higher biobased content contain 

similar biobased materials, but had 

higher biobased contents because they 

simply had a thicker layer of the 

backing material. Thus, those products 

with the lower biobased content are 

likely to be less costly and more 

competitive in markets such as the 

commercial carpet segment. USDA is 

proposing to set the minimum biobased 

content at a level that will include all 

of the products sampled. USDA believes 

that it is in the best interest of the 

preferred procurement program for 

minimum biobased contents to be set at 

levels that will realistically allow 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47608 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow them 

to compete with non-biobased products 

in performance and economics. 

Furthermore, setting the minimum 

biobased content level based on the 

lowest level found among the sampled 

products also will provide more 

products from which procurement 

officials may choose and will encourage 

the most widespread usage of biobased 

products by procuring agencies. 

10. Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners 

Ten of the 17 biobased carpet and 

upholstery cleaners identified have been 

tested for biobased content using ASTM 

D6866. The biobased content of these 10 

biobased carpet and upholstery cleaners 

ranged from 10 percent to 99 percent. 

Two products, with biobased contents 

of 10 and 15 percent are characterized 

by their manufacturers as ‘‘spot 

removers.’’ USDA did not consider 

these products in establishing the 

minimum biobased content because this 

designated item is intended to include 

those products formulated for use in 

larger scale cleaning operations than 

would be typical for ‘‘spot removers.’’

The biobased content of the eight 

remaining products ranged from 37 

percent to 99 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 34 percent, based on the product with 

a biobased content of 37 percent. USDA 

is proposing to set the minimum 

biobased content at a level that will 

include all of the products sampled. 

USDA believes that it is in the best 

interest of the preferred procurement 

program for minimum biobased 

contents to be set at levels that will 

realistically allow products to possess 

the necessary performance attributes 

and allow them to compete with nonbiobased products in performance and 

economics. Furthermore, setting the 

minimum biobased content level based 

on the lowest level found among the 

sampled products will offer procuring 

agencies more choices in selecting 

products to purchase and will 

encourage the most widespread usage of 

biobased products by procuring 

agencies. 

D. Effective Date for Procurement 

Preference and Incorporation Into 

Specifications 

USDA intends for the final rule to 

take effect thirty (30) days after 

publication of the final rule. However, 

under the terms of the proposed rule, 

procuring agencies would have a oneyear transition period, starting from the 

date of publication of the final rule, 

before the procurement preference for 

biobased products within a designated 

item would take effect. 

USDA proposes a one-year period 

before the procurement preferences 

would take effect based on an 

understanding that Federal agencies 

will need time to incorporate the 

preferences into procurement 

documents and to revise existing 

standardized specifications. Section 

9002(d) of FSRIA and section 2902(c) of 

7 CFR part 2902 explicitly acknowledge 

the latter need for Federal agencies to 

have sufficient time to revise the 

affected specifications to give preference 

to biobased products when purchasing 

the designated items. Procuring agencies 

will need time to evaluate the economic 

and technological feasibility of the 

available biobased products for their 

agency-specific uses and for compliance 

with agency-specific requirements, 

including manufacturers’ warranties for 

machinery in which the biobased 

products would be used. 

By the time these items are 

promulgated for designation, Federal 

agencies will have had a minimum of 18 

months (from when these designated 

items were proposed), and much longer 

considering when the Guidelines were 

first proposed and these requirements 

were first laid out, to implement these 

requirements. 

For these reasons, USDA proposes 

that the mandatory preference for 

biobased products under the designated 

items take effect one year after 

promulgation of the final rule. The oneyear period provides these agencies 

with ample time to evaluate the 

economic and technological feasibility 

of biobased products for a specific use 

and to revise the specifications 

accordingly. However, some agencies 

may be able to complete these processes 

more expeditiously, and not all uses 

will require extensive analysis or 

revision of existing specifications. 

Although it is allowing up to one year, 

USDA encourages procuring agencies to 

implement the procurement preferences 

as early as practicable for procurement 

actions involving any of the designated 

items. 

V. Where Can Agencies Get More 

Information on These USDA-Designated 

Items? 

Once the item designations in today’s 

proposal become final, manufacturers 

and vendors voluntarily may post 

information on specific products, 

including product and contact 

information, on the USDA biobased 

products Web site 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-ofdate information. Procuring agencies 

should contact the manufacturers and 

vendors directly to discuss specific 

needs and to obtain detailed 

information on the availability and 

prices of biobased products meeting 

those needs. 

By accessing the Web site, agencies 

will also be able to obtain the 

voluntarily-posted information on each 

product concerning: Relative price; life 

cycle costs; hot links directly to a 

manufacturer’s or vendor’s Web site (if 

available); performance standards 

(industry, government, military, ASTM/ 

ISO) that the product has been tested 

against; and environmental and public 

health information from the BEES 

analysis or the alternative analysis 

embedded in the ASTM Standard 

D7075, ‘‘Standard Practice for 

Evaluating and Reporting 

Environmental Performance of Biobased 

Products.’’

USDA has linked its Web site to 

DoD’s list of specifications and 

standards, which can be used as 

guidance when procuring products. To 

access this list, go to USDA’s FB4P Web 

site and click on the ‘‘Product 

Submission’’ tab and look for the DoD 

Specifications link. 

VI. Regulatory Information 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to determine whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant.’’ The 

Order defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: ‘‘(1) Have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more or adversely affect, in a material 

way, the economy, a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) Create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

Materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in this Executive 

Order.’’

It has been determined that this rule 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866. The annual economic effect 

associated with today’s proposed rule 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47609 

has not been quantified because the 

information necessary to estimate the 

effect does not exist. As was discussed 

earlier in this preamble, USDA made 

extensive efforts to obtain information 

on the Federal agencies’ usage of the 10 

items proposed for designation. These 

efforts were largely unsuccessful. 

Therefore, attempts to determine the 

economic impacts of today’s proposed 

rule would necessitate estimating the 

anticipated market penetration of 

biobased products, which would entail 

many assumptions and, thus, be of 

questionable value. Also, the program 

allows procuring agencies the option of 

not purchasing biobased products if the 

costs are deemed ‘‘unreasonable.’’

Under this program, the determination 

of ‘‘unreasonable’’ costs will be made by 

individual agencies. USDA knows these 

agencies will consider such factors as 

price, life-cycle costs, and 

environmental benefits in determining 

whether the cost of a biobased product 

is determined to be ‘‘reasonable’’ or 

‘‘unreasonable.’’ However, until the 

program is actually implemented by the 

various agencies, it is impossible to 

quantify the impact this option would 

have on the economic effect of the rule. 

Therefore, USDA relied on a qualitative 

assessment to reach the judgment that 

the annual economic effect of the 

designation of these 10 items is less 

than $100 million, and likely to be 

substantially less than $100 million. 

This judgment was based primarily on 

the offsetting nature of the program (an 

increase in biobased products 

purchased with a corresponding 

decrease in petroleum products 

purchased) and, secondarily, on the 

ability of procuring agencies not to 

purchase these items if costs are judged 

unreasonable, which would reduce the 

economic effect. 

1. Summary of Impacts 

Today’s proposed rulemaking is 

expected to have both positive and 

negative impacts to individual 

businesses, including small businesses. 

USDA anticipates that the biobased 

preferred procurement program will 

provide additional opportunities for 

businesses to begin supplying biobased 

materials to manufacturers of 2-cycle 

engine oils, lip care products, 

biodegradable films, stationary 

equipment hydraulic fluids, 

biodegradable cutlery, glass cleaners, 

greases, dust suppressants, carpets, and 

carpet and upholstery cleaners and to 

begin supplying these products made 

with biobased materials to Federal 

agencies and their contractors. In 

addition, other businesses, including 

small businesses, that do not directly 

contract with procuring agencies may be 

affected positively by the increased 

demand for these biobased materials 

and products. However, other 

businesses that manufacture and supply 

only non-qualifying products and do not 

offer a biobased alternative product may 

experience a decrease in demand for 

their products. Thus, today’s proposed 

rule will likely increase the demand for 

biobased products, while decreasing the 

demand for non-qualifying products. It 

is anticipated that this will create a 

largely ‘‘offsetting’’ economic impact. 

USDA is unable to determine the 

number of businesses, including small 

businesses, that may be adversely 

affected by today’s proposed rule. If a 

business currently supplies any of the 

items proposed for designation to a 

procuring agency and those products do 

not qualify as biobased products, the 

proposed rule may reduce that 

company’s ability to compete for future 

contracts. However, the proposed rule 

will not affect existing purchase orders, 

nor will it preclude businesses from 

modifying their product lines to meet 

new specifications or solicitation 

requirements for these products 

containing biobased materials. Thus, 

many businesses, including small 

businesses, that market to Federal 

agencies and their contractors have the 

option of modifying their product lines 

to meet the new biobased specifications. 

2. Summary of Benefits 

The designation of these 10 items 

provides the benefits outlined in the 

objectives of section 9002: To increase 

domestic demand for biobased products 

and, thus, for the many agricultural 

commodities that can serve as 

feedstocks for production of biobased 

products; to spur development of the 

industrial base through value-added 

agricultural processing and 

manufacturing in rural communities; 

and to enhance the nation’s energy 

security by substituting biobased 

products for products derived from 

imported oil and natural gas. The 

increased demand for biobased products 

will also lead to the substitution of 

products with a possibly more benign or 

beneficial environmental impact, as 

compared to the use of non-biobased 

products. By purchasing these biobased 

products, procuring agencies can 

increase opportunities for all of these 

benefits. On a national and regional 

level, today’s proposed rule can result 

in expanding and strengthening markets 

for biobased materials used in these 10 

items. However, because the extent to 

which procuring agencies will find the 

performance and costs of biobased 

products acceptable is unknown, it is 

impossible to quantify the actual 

economic effect of today’s proposed 

rule. USDA, however, anticipates the 

annual economic effect of the 

designation of these 10 items to be 

substantially below the $100 million 

threshold. In addition, today’s proposed 

rule does not do any of the following: 

Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or 

policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in Executive 

Order 12866. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–602, generally 

requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

USDA evaluated the potential impacts 

of its proposed designation of these 10 

items to determine whether its actions 

would have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Because the Federal Biobased Products 

Preferred Procurement Program in 

section 9002 of FSRIA applies only to 

Federal agencies and their contractors, 

small governmental (city, county, etc.) 

agencies are not affected. Thus, the 

proposal, if promulgated, will not have 

a significant economic impact on small 

governmental jurisdictions. USDA 

anticipates that this program will affect 

entities, both large and small, that 

manufacture or sell biobased products. 

For example, the designation of items 

for preferred procurement will provide 

additional opportunities for businesses 

to manufacture and sell biobased 

products to Federal agencies and their 

contractors. Similar opportunities will 

be provided for entities that supply 

biobased materials to manufacturers. 

Conversely, the biobased procurement 

program may decrease opportunities for 

businesses that manufacture or sell nonbiobased products or provide 

components for the manufacturing of 

such products. However, the proposed 

rule will not affect existing purchase 

orders and it will not preclude 

procuring agencies from continuing to 

purchase non-biobased items under 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47610 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

certain conditions relating to the 

availability, performance, or cost of 

biobased items. Today’s proposed rule 

will also not preclude businesses from 

modifying their product lines to meet 

new specifications or solicitation 

requirements for these products 

containing biobased materials. Thus, the 

economic impacts of today’s proposed 

rule are not expected to be significant. 

The intent of section 9002 is largely 

to stimulate the production of new 

biobased products and to energize 

emerging markets for those products. 

Because the program is still in its 

infancy, however, it is unknown how 

many businesses will ultimately be 

affected. While USDA has no data on 

the number of small businesses that may 

choose to develop and market products 

within the 10 items proposed for 

designation by today’s proposed 

rulemaking, the number is expected to 

be small. Because biobased products 

represent an emerging market, only a 

small percentage of all manufacturers, 

large or small, are expected to develop 

and market biobased products. Thus, 

the number of small businesses affected 

by today’s proposed rulemaking is not 

expected to be substantial. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, USDA certifies that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule, 

therefore, does not require a regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

While not a factor relevant to 

determining whether the proposed rule 

will have a significant impact for RFA 

purposes, USDA has concluded that the 

effect of today’s proposed rule would be 

to provide positive opportunities to 

businesses engaged in the manufacture 

of these biobased products. Purchase 

and use of these biobased products by 

procuring agencies increase demand for 

these products and result in private 

sector development of new 

technologies, creating business and 

employment opportunities that enhance 

local, regional, and national economies. 

Technological innovation associated 

with the use of biobased materials can 

translate into economic growth and 

increased industry competitiveness 

worldwide, thereby, creating 

opportunities for small entities. 

C. Executive Order 12630: 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

With Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

in accordance with Executive Order 

12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights, and does not 

contain policies that would have 

implications for these rights. 

D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

in accordance with Executive Order 

12988, Civil Justice Reform. This 

proposed rule does not preempt State or 

local laws, is not intended to have 

retroactive effect, and does not involve 

administrative appeals. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment. Provisions of this proposed 

rule will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or their political 

subdivisions or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various government levels. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule contains no 

Federal mandates under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, for State, local, and 

tribal governments, or the private sector. 

Therefore, a statement under section 

202 of UMRA is not required. 

G. Executive Order 12372: 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs 

For the reasons set forth in the Final 

Rule Related Notice for 7 CFR part 3015, 

subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), 

this program is excluded from the scope 

of the Executive Order 12372, which 

requires intergovernmental consultation 

with State and local officials. This 

program does not directly affect State 

and local governments. 

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Today’s proposed rule does not 

significantly or uniquely affect ‘‘one or 

more Indian tribes, * * * the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or * * * 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ Thus, 

no further action is required under 

Executive Order 13175. 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

through 3520), the information 

collection under this proposed rule is 

currently approved under OMB control 

number 0503–0011. 

J. Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act Compliance 

The Office of Energy Policy and New 

Uses is committed to compliance with 

the Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3504 note), 

which requires Government agencies in 

general to provide the public the option 

of submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. USDA is implementing 

an electronic information system for 

posting information voluntarily 

submitted by manufacturers or vendors 

on the products they intend to offer for 

preferred procurement under each item 

designated. For information pertinent to 

GPEA compliance related to this rule, 

please contact Marvin Duncan at (202) 

401–0461. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 2902 

Biobased products, Procurement. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Agriculture 

proposes to amend 7 CFR chapter XXIX 

as follows: 

CHAPTER XXIX—OFFICE OF ENERGY 

POLICY AND NEW USES, DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

PART 2902—GUIDELINES FOR 

DESIGNATING BIOBASED PRODUCTS 

FOR FEDERAL PROCUREMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 2902 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8102. 

2. Add §§ 2902.26 through 2902.35 to 

subpart B to read as follows: 

Subpart B—Designated Items 

Sec. 

2902.26 2–Cycle Engine Oils. 

2902.27 Lip Care Products. 

2902.28 Biodegradable Films. 

2902.29 Stationary Equipment Hydraulic 

Fluids. 

2902.30 Biodegradable Cutlery. 

2902.31 Glass Cleaners. 

2902.32 Greases. 

2902.33 Dust Suppressants. 

2902.34 Carpets. 

2902.35 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners. 

Subpart B—Designated Items 

* * * * * 

§ 2902.26 2–Cycle Engine Oils. 

(a) Definition. Lubricants formulated 

to provide clean-burning lubrication, 

decreased spark plug fouling, reduced 

deposit formation, and reduced engine 

wear in 2-cycle gasoline engines. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 7 percent 

and shall be based on the amount of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47611 

qualifying biobased carbon in the 

product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased 2-cycle engine oils. 

By that date, Federal agencies that have 

the responsibility for drafting or 

reviewing specifications for items to be 

procured shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased 2-cycle engine oils. 

(d) Exemptions. The following 

applications are exempt for the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item: 

(1) Military equipment: Product or 

system designed or procured for combat 

or combat-related missions. 

(2) Spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

§ 2902.27 Lip Care Products. 

(a) Definition. Personal care products 

formulated to replenish the moisture 

and/or prevent drying of the lips. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 82 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased lip care products. 

By that date, Federal agencies that have 

the responsibility for drafting or 

reviewing specifications for items to be 

procured shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased lip care products. 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.28 Biodegradable Films. 

(a) Definition. Films used in 

packaging, wrappings, linings, and other 

similar applications and that are capable 

of meeting ASTM D6400 standard for 

biodegradability. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 22 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased biodegradable films. 

By that date, Federal agencies that have 

the responsibility for drafting or 

reviewing specifications for items to be 

procured shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased biodegradable films. 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.29 Stationary Equipment Hydraulic 

Fluids. 

(a) Definition. Hydraulic fluids 

formulated for use as a mechanical 

power transmission medium (and to 

provide wear, rust, and oxidation 

protection) in the hydraulic systems of 

stationary equipment. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 46 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased stationary 

equipment hydraulic fluids. By that 

date, Federal agencies that have the 

responsibility for drafting or reviewing 

specifications for items to be procured 

shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased stationary equipment 

hydraulic fluids. 

(d) Determining overlap with an EPAdesignated recovered content product. 

Qualifying biobased products that fall 

under this item may, in some cases, 

overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: Re-refined 

lubricating oils. USDA is requesting that 

manufacturers of these qualifying 

biobased products provide information 

on the USDA Web site of qualifying 

biobased products about the intended 

uses of the product, information on 

whether or not the product contains any 

recovered material, in addition to 

biobased ingredients, and performance 

standards against which the product has 

been tested. This information will assist 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether or not a qualifying biobased 

product overlaps with EPA-designated 

building insulation and which product 

should be afforded the preference in 

purchasing. 

(e) Exemptions. The following 

applications are exempt for the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item: 

(1) Military equipment: Product or 

system designed or procured for combat 

or combat-related missions. 

(2) Spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

§ 2902.30 Biodegradable Cutlery. 

(a) Definition. Hand-held, disposable 

utensils designed for one-time use in 

eating food and that are capable of 

meeting ASTM D5338 standard for 

biodegradability. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 33 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased biodegradable 

cutlery. By that date, Federal agencies 

that have the responsibility for drafting 

or reviewing specifications for items to 

be procured shall ensure that the 

relevant specifications require the use of 

biobased biodegradable cutlery. 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.31 Glass Cleaners. 

(a) Definition. Cleaning products 

designed specifically for use in cleaning 

glass surfaces, such as windows, 

mirrors, car windows, and computer 

monitors. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 23 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. If the finished product 

is to be diluted before use, the biobased 

content of the cleaner must be 

determined before dilution. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased glass cleaners. By 

that date, Federal agencies that have the 

responsibility for drafting or reviewing 

specifications for items to be procured 

shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased glass cleaners. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47612 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.32 Greases. 

(a) Definition. (1) Lubricants 

composed of oils thickened with soaps 

or other thickeners to a semisolid or 

solid consistency. 

(2) Greases for which minimum 

biobased contents under paragraph (b) 

of this section apply are: 

(i) Food grade greases. Lubricants that 

are designed for use on food-processing 

equipment as a protective anti-rust film, 

as a release agent on gaskets or seals of 

tank closures, or on machine parts and 

equipment in locations in which there 

is exposure of the lubricated part to 

food. 

(ii) Multipurpose greases. Lubricants 

that are designed for general use. 

(iii) Rail track greases. Lubricants that 

are designed for use on railroad tracks 

or heavy crane tracks. 

(iv) Truck greases. Lubricants that are 

designed for use on the fifth wheel of 

tractor trailer trucks onto which the 

semi-trailer rests and pivots. 

(v) Greases not elsewhere specified. 

Lubricants that meet the general 

definition of greases as defined in 

paragraph (a) of this section, but are not 

otherwise covered by paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (5) of this section. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content for all 

greases shall be based on the amount of 

qualifying biobased carbon in the 

product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. The applicable 

minimum biobased contents are: 

(1) Food grade grease—42 percent. 

(2) Multipurpose grease—73 percent. 

(3) Rail track grease—30 percent. 

(4) Truck grease—72 percent. 

(5) Greases not elsewhere specified—

75 percent. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased greases. By that 

date, Federal agencies that have the 

responsibility for drafting or reviewing 

specifications for items to be procured 

shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased greases. 

(d) Exemptions. The following 

applications are exempt for the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item: 

(1) Military equipment: Product or 

system designed or procured for combat 

or combat-related missions. 

(2) Spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

§ 2902.33 Dust Suppressants. 

(a) Definition. Products formulated to 

reduce or eliminate the spread of dust 

associated with gravel roads, dirt 

parking lots, or similar sources of dust, 

including products used in equivalent 

indoor applications. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 66 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. If the finished product 

is to be diluted before use, the biobased 

content of the suppressant must be 

determined before dilution. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased dust suppressants. 

By that date, Federal agencies that have 

the responsibility for drafting or 

reviewing specifications for items to be 

procured shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased dust suppressants. 

(d) Exemptions. The following 

applications are exempt for the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item: 

(1) Military equipment: Product or 

system designed or procured for combat 

or combat-related missions. 

(2) Spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

§ 2902.34 Carpets. 

(a) Definition. Floor coverings 

composed of woven fibers, with a 

backing. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 7 percent 

and shall be based on the amount of 

qualifying biobased carbon in the 

product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased carpet. By that date, 

Federal agencies that have the 

responsibility for drafting or reviewing 

specifications for items to be procured 

shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased carpet. 

(d) Determining overlap with an EPAdesignated recovered content product. 

Qualifying biobased products that fall 

under this item may, in some cases, 

overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: Carpets 

(polyester). USDA is requesting that 

manufacturers of these qualifying 

biobased products provide information 

on the USDA Web site of qualifying 

biobased products about the intended 

uses of the product, information on 

whether or not the product contains any 

recovered material, in addition to 

biobased ingredients, and performance 

standards against which the product has 

been tested. This information will assist 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether or not a qualifying biobased 

product overlaps with EPA-designated 

building insulation and which product 

should be afforded the preference in 

purchasing. 

(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.35 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners. 

(a) Definition. Cleaning products 

formulated specifically for use in 

cleaning carpets and upholstery, 

through a dry or wet process, found in 

locations such as houses, cars, and 

workplaces. Spot cleaners are not 

included in this item. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 34 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased carpet and 

upholstery cleaners. By that date, 

Federal agencies that have the 

responsibility for drafting or reviewing 

specifications for items to be procured 

shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased carpet and upholstery 

cleaners. 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

Dated: August 10, 2006. 

Keith Collins, 

Chief Economist, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 06–6920 Filed 8–14–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–GL–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS