47566 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–AA30 

Designation of Biobased Items for 

Federal Procurement 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Policy and 

New Uses, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to 

amend 7 CFR part 2902, Guidelines for 

Designating Biobased Products for 

Federal Procurement, to add 10 sections 

to designate the following 10 items 

within which biobased products would 

be afforded Federal procurement 

preference, as provided for under 

section 9002 of the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002: Adhesive 

and mastic removers; insulating foam 

for wall construction; hand cleaners and 

sanitizers; composite panels; fluid-filled 

transformers; biodegradable containers; 

fertilizers; metalworking fluids; 

sorbents; and graffiti and grease 

removers. USDA also is proposing 

minimum biobased content for each of 

these items. Once USDA designates an 

item, procuring agencies are required 

generally to purchase biobased products 

within these designated items where the 

purchase price of the procurement item 

exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity 

of such items or the functionally 

equivalent items purchased over the 

preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or 

more. 

DATES: USDA will accept public 

comments on this proposed rule until 

October 16, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods. All 

submissions received must include the 

agency name and Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN). The RIN for 

this rulemaking is 0503–AA30. Also, 

please identify submittals as pertaining 

to the ‘‘Proposed Designation of Items.’’ 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: fb4p@oce.usda.gov. Include 

RIN number 0503–AA30 and ‘‘Proposed 

Designation of Items’’ on the subject 

line. Please include your name and 

address in your message. 

• Mail/commercial/hand delivery: 

Mail or deliver your comments to: 

Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the 

Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses, Room 4059, South 

Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., MS–3815, Washington, DC 20250– 

3815. 

• Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for 

communication for regulatory 

information (braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact the 

USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720– 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marvin Duncan, USDA, Office of the 

Chief Economist, Office of Energy Policy 

and New Uses, Room 4059, South 

Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW., MS–3815, Washington, DC 20250– 

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

phone (202) 401–0461. Information 

regarding the Federal Biobased Products 

Preferred Procurement Program is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.biobased.oce.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. Authority 

II. Background 

III. Summary of Today’s Proposed 

Rulemaking 

IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased 

Contents, and Time Frame 

A. Background 

B. Items Proposed for Designation 

C. Minimum Biobased Contents 

D. Effective Date for Procurement 

Preference and Incorporation Into 

Specifications 

V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information 

on These USDA-Designated Items? 

VI. Regulatory Information 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Executive Order 12372: 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs 

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

Compliance 

I. Authority 

The designation of these items is 

proposed under the authority of section 

9002 of the Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), 7 

U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this 

document as ‘‘section 9002’’). 

II. Background 

Section 9002 of FSRIA, as amended 

by section 943 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, Public Law 109–58 (Energy 

Policy Act), provides for the preferred 

procurement of biobased products by 

procuring agencies. Section 943 of the 

Energy Policy Act amended the 

definitions section of FSRIA, 7 U.S.C. 

8101, by adding a definition of 

‘‘procuring agency’’ that includes both 

Federal agencies and ‘‘any person 

contracting with any Federal agency 

with respect to work performed under 

that contract.’’ The amendment also 

made Federal contractors, as well as 

Federal agencies, expressly subject to 

the procurement preference provisions 

of section 9002 of FSRIA. However, 

because this program requires agencies 

to incorporate the preference for 

biobased products into procurement 

specifications, the statutory amendment 

makes no substantive change to the 

program. USDA amended the 

Guidelines to incorporate the new 

definition of ‘‘procuring agency’’ 

through an interim final rule. 

Procuring agencies must procure 

biobased products within each 

designated item unless they determine 

that products within a designated item 

are not reasonably available within a 

reasonable period of time, fail to meet 

the reasonable performance standards of 

the procuring agencies, or are available 

only at an unreasonable price. As stated 

in the Guidelines, biobased products 

that are merely incidental to Federal 

funding are excluded from the preferred 

procurement program. In implementing 

the preferred procurement program for 

biobased products, procuring agencies 

should follow their procurement rules 

and Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy guidance on buying non-biobased 

products when biobased products exist 

and should document exceptions taken 

for price, performance, and availability. 

USDA recognizes that the 

performance needs for a given 

application are important criteria in 

making procurement decisions. USDA is 

not requiring procuring agencies to limit 

their choices to biobased products that 

fall under the items for designation in 

this proposed rule. Rather, the effect of 

the designation of the items is to require 

procuring agencies to determine their 

performance needs, determine whether 

there are qualified biobased products 

that fall under the designated items that 

meet the reasonable performance 

standards for those needs, and purchase 

such qualified biobased products to the 

maximum extent practicable as required 

by section 9002. 

Section 9002 also requires USDA to 

provide information to procuring 

agencies on the availability, relative 

price, performance, and environmental 

and public health benefits of such items 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47567 

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

recommend where appropriate the 

minimum level of biobased content to 

be contained in the procured products. 

Overlap with EPA Comprehensive 

Procurement Guidelines program for 

recovered content products. Some of the 

biobased items designated for preferred 

procurement may overlap with products 

designated under the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines 

program for recovered content products. 

Where that occurs, an EPA-designated 

recovered content product (also known 

as ‘‘recycled content products’’ or ‘‘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 DfE program. To fully compare 

products, one must look at the ‘‘cradleto-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
47568 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

preferred procurement: Adhesive and 

mastic removers; insulating foam for 

wall construction; hand cleaners and 

sanitizers; composite panels; fluid-filled 

transformers; biodegradable containers; 

fertilizers; metalworking fluids; 

sorbents; and graffiti and grease 

removers. USDA is also proposing 

minimum biobased content for each of 

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

USDA is proposing a date by which 

Federal agencies must incorporate 

designated items into their procurement 

specifications (see Section IV.D). 

In today’s proposed rulemaking, 

USDA is providing information on its 

findings as to the availability, economic 

and technical feasibility, environmental 

and public health benefits, and life 

cycle costs for each of the 10 designated 

items. Information on the availability, 

relative price, performance, and 

environmental and public health 

benefits of individual products within 

each of these 10 items is not presented 

in this notice. Further, USDA has 

reached an agreement with 

manufacturers not to publish their 

names in the Federal Register when 

designating items. This agreement was 

reached to encourage manufacturers to 

submit products for testing to support 

the designation of an item. Once an item 

has been designated, USDA will 

encourage the manufacturers of 

products within the designated item to 

voluntarily post their names and other 

contact information on the USDA FB4P 

Web site. 

Warranties. Some of the items being 

proposed for designation today may 

affect maintenance warranties. As time 

and resources allow, USDA will work 

with manufacturers on addressing any 

effect the use of biobased products may 

have on maintenance warranties. At this 

time, however, USDA does not have 

information available as to whether or 

not the manufacturers will state that the 

use of these products will void 

maintenance warranties. USDA 

encourages manufacturers of biobased 

products to work with original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to 

ensure that biobased products will not 

void maintenance warranties when 

used. USDA is willing to assist 

manufacturers of the biobased products, 

if they find that existing performance 

standards for maintenance warranties 

are not relevant or appropriate for 

biobased products, in working with the 

appropriate OEMs to develop tests that 

are relevant and appropriate for the end 

uses in which biobased products are 

intended. If despite these efforts there is 

insufficient information regarding the 

use of a biobased product and its effect 

on maintenance warranties, USDA notes 

that the procurement agent would not 

be required to buy such a product. As 

information is available on warranties, 

USDA will make such information 

available on its FB4P Web site. 

Additional Information. USDA is 

working with manufacturers and 

vendors to post all relevant product and 

manufacturer contact information on the 

FB4P Web site before a procuring 

agency asks for it, in order to make the 

preferred program more efficient. Steps 

USDA has implemented, or will 

implement, include: Making direct 

contact with submitting companies 

through email and phone conversations 

to encourage completion of product 

listing; coordinating outreach efforts 

with intermediate material producers to 

encourage participation of their 

customer base; conducting targeted 

outreach with industry and commodity 

groups to educate stakeholders on the 

importance of providing complete 

product information; participating in 

industry conferences and meetings to 

educate companies on program benefits 

and requirements; and communicating 

the potential for expanded markets 

beyond the Federal government, to 

include State and local governments, as 

well as the general public markets. 

Section V provides instructions to 

agencies on how to obtain this 

information on products within these 

items through the following Web site: 

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

Comments. USDA invites comment 

on the proposed designation of these 10 

items, including the definition, 

proposed minimum biobased content, 

and any of the relevant analyses 

performed during the selection of these 

items. In addition, USDA invites 

comments and information in the 

following areas: 

1. Four of the items being proposed 

for designation (insulating foam, 

composite panels, fertilizers, and 

sorbents) may overlap with products 

designated under EPA’s Comprehensive 

Procurement Guidelines for products 

containing recovered material. To help 

procuring agencies in making their 

purchasing decisions between biobased 

products within the proposed 

designated items that overlap with 

products containing recovered material, 

USDA is requesting from manufacturers 

and users product specific information 

on unique performance attributes, 

environmental and human health 

effects, disposal costs, and other 

attributes that would distinguish 

biobased products from products 

containing recovered material, as well 

as non-biobased products. USDA will 

post this information on the FB4P Web 

site. 

2. We are proposing a single item 

designation for hand cleaners and 

sanitizers. We are seeking comment as 

to whether there are different 

performance standards for this item and, 

if so, whether USDA should consider 

either creating subcategories within this 

item, each with its own minimum 

biobased content, or limiting the scope 

of the current item and proposing one 

or more new items for hand cleaners 

and sanitizers. In your comments, 

please be sure to identify specific 

performance standards and rationale for 

either subdividing the current proposed 

item or for limiting the scope of the 

current proposed item and proposing 

one or more new items for hand 

cleaners and sanitizers. 

3. We are proposing a single 

minimum biobased content for the item 

insulation foam for wall construction. 

The proposed minimum biobased 

content is based on two measured 

biobased contents, one for a spray foam 

product and one for a rigid foam 

product. USDA is interested in receiving 

comments as to whether USDA should 

set a minimum biobased content for 

spray foam products and one for rigid 

foam products. Please be sure to provide 

your rationale for your comments. 

4. We have attempted to identify 

relevant and appropriate performance 

standards and other relevant measures 

of performance for each of the proposed 

items. If you know of other such 

standards or relevant measures of 

performance for the proposed items, 

USDA requests that you submit 

information identifying such standards 

and measures, including their name 

(and other identifying information as 

necessary), identifying who is using the 

standard/measure, and describing the 

circumstances under which the product 

is being used. 

5. Many biobased products within the 

items being proposed for designation 

will have positive environmental and 

human health attributes. USDA is 

seeking comments on such attributes in 

order to provide additional information 

on the FB4P Web site. This information 

will then be available to Federal 

procuring agencies and will assist them 

in making ‘‘best value’’ purchase 

decisions. When possible, please 

provide appropriate documentation to 

support the environmental and human 

health attributes you describe. 

To assist you in developing your 

comments, the background information 

used in proposing these items for 

designation can be found on the FB4P 

Web site. All comments should be 

submitted as directed in the ADDRESSES

section above. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47569 

IV. Designation of Items, Minimum 

Biobased Contents, and Time Frame 

A. Background 

In order to designate items (generic 

groupings of specific products such as 

crankcase oils or products that contain 

qualifying biobased fibers) for preferred 

procurement, section 9002 requires 

USDA to consider: (1) The availability 

of items; and (2) the economic and 

technological feasibility of using the 

items, including the life cycle costs of 

the items. 

In considering an item’s availability, 

USDA uses several sources of 

information. USDA performs Internet 

searches, contacts trade associations 

(such as the Biobased Manufacturers 

Association) and commodity groups, 

searches the Thomas Register (a 

database, used as a resource for finding 

companies and products manufactured 

in North America, containing over 

173,000 entries), and contacts 

individual manufacturers and vendors 

to identify those manufacturers and 

vendors with biobased products within 

items being considered for designation. 

USDA uses the results of these same 

searches to determine if an item is 

generally available. 

In considering an item’s economic 

and technological feasibility, USDA 

examines evidence pointing to the 

general commercial use of an item and 

its cost and performance characteristics. 

This information is obtained from the 

sources used to assess an item’s 

availability. Commercial use, in turn, is 

evidenced by any manufacturer and 

vendor information on the availability, 

relative prices, and performance of their 

products as well as by evidence of an 

item being purchased by a procuring 

agency or other entity, where available. 

In sum, USDA considers an item 

economically and technologically 

feasible for purposes of designation if 

products within that item are being 

offered and used in the marketplace. 

In considering the life cycle costs of 

items proposed for designation, USDA 

uses the BEES analytical tool to test 

individual products within each 

proposed item. (Detailed information on 

this analytical tool can be found on the 

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

software/bees.html.) The BEES 

analytical tool measures the 

environmental performance and the 

economic performance of a product. 

Environmental performance is 

measured in the BEES analytical tool 

using the internationally-standardized 

and science-based life cycle assessment 

approach specified in the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

14000 standards. The BEES 

environmental performance analysis 

includes human health as one of its 

components. All stages in the life of a 

product are analyzed: Raw material 

production; manufacture; 

transportation; installation; use; and 

recycling and waste management. The 

time period over which environmental 

performance is measured begins with 

raw material production and ends with 

disposal (waste management). The BEES 

environmental performance analysis 

also addresses products made from 

biobased feedstocks. 

Economic performance in the BEES 

analysis is measured using the ASTM 

standard life cycle cost method (ASTM 

E917), which covers the costs of initial 

investment, replacement, operation, 

maintenance and repair, and disposal. 

The time frame for economic 

performance extends from the purchase 

of the product to final disposal. 

USDA then utilizes the BEES results 

of individual products within a 

designated item in its consideration of 

the life cycle costs at the item level. 

There is a single unit of comparison 

associated with each designated item. 

The basis for the unit of comparison is 

the ‘‘functional unit,’’ defined so that 

the products compared are true 

substitutes for one another. If significant 

differences have been identified in the 

useful lives of alternative products 

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

product lasts twice as long as another), 

the functional unit will include 

reference to a time dimension to 

account for the frequency of product 

replacement. The functional unit also 

will account for products used in 

different amounts for equivalent service. 

For example, one surface coating 

product may be environmentally and 

economically preferable to another on a 

pound-for-pound basis, but may require 

twice the mass to cover one square foot 

of surface, and last half as long, as the 

other product. To account for these 

performance differences, the functional 

unit for the surface coating item could 

be ‘‘one square foot of application for 20 

years’’ instead of ‘‘one pound of surface 

coating product.’’ The functional unit 

provides the critical reference point to 

which all BEES results for products 

within an item are scaled. Because 

functional units vary from item to item, 

performance comparisons are valid only 

among products within a designated 

item. 

The complete results of the BEES 

analysis, extrapolated to the item level, 

for each item proposed for designation 

in today’s proposed rulemaking can be 

found at http:// 

www.biobased.oce.usda.gov. 

As discussed above, the BEES 

analysis includes information on the 

environmental performance, human 

health impacts, and economic 

performance. In addition, ASTM D7505, 

which manufacturers may use in lieu of 

the BEES analytical tool, provides 

similar information. USDA is working 

with manufacturers and vendors to post 

this information on the FB4P Web site 

before a procuring agency asks for it, in 

order to make the preferred 

procurement program more efficient. As 

discussed earlier, USDA has also 

implemented, or will implement, 

several other steps intended to educate 

the manufacturers and other 

stakeholders on the benefits of this 

program and the need to post this 

information, including manufacturer 

contact information, on the FB4P Web 

site to make it available to procurement 

officials. Additional information on 

specific products within the items 

proposed for designation may also be 

obtained directly from the 

manufacturers of the products. 

USDA recognizes that information 

related to the functional performance of 

biobased products is a primary factor in 

making the decision to purchase these 

products. USDA is gathering from 

manufacturers of biobased products 

being considered for designation 

information on industry standard test 

methods that they are using to evaluate 

the functional performance of their 

products. Additional standards are also 

being identified during meetings of the 

Interagency Council and during the 

review process for each proposed rule. 

We have listed under the detailed 

discussion of each item proposed for 

designation (presented in Section IV.B) 

the functional performance test methods 

identified during the development of 

this Federal Register notice for these 10 

items. While this process identifies 

many of the relevant standards, USDA 

recognizes that the performance test 

methods identified herein do not 

represent all of the methods that may be 

applicable for a designated item or for 

any individual product within the 

designated item. As noted earlier in this 

preamble, USDA is requesting 

identification of other relevant 

performance standards and measures of 

performance. As the program becomes 

fully implemented, these and other 

additional relevant performance 

standards will be available on the FB4P 

Web site. 

In gathering information relevant to 

the analyses discussed above, USDA has 

made extensive efforts to contact and 

request information and product 

samples from representatives of all 

known manufacturers of products 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47570 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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: Adhesive and mastic 

removers; insulating foam for wall 

construction; hand cleaners and 

sanitizers; composite panels; fluid-filled 

transformers; biodegradable containers; 

fertilizers; metalworking fluids; 

sorbents; and graffiti and grease 

removers. USDA has determined that 

each of these 10 items meets the 

necessary statutory requirements—

namely, that they are being produced 

with biobased products and that their 

procurement by procuring agencies will 

carry out the following objectives of 

section 9002: 

• To increase demand for biobased 

products, which would in turn increase 

demand for agricultural commodities 

that can serve as feedstocks for the 

production of biobased products; 

• To spur development of the 

industrial base through value-added 

agricultural processing and 

manufacturing in rural communities; 

and 

• To enhance the nation’s energy 

security by substituting biobased 

products for products derived from 

imported oil and natural gas. 

Further, USDA has sufficient 

information on these 10 items to 

determine their availability and to 

conduct the requisite analyses to 

determine their biobased content and 

their economic and technological 

feasibility, including life cycle costs. 

Mature Markets. Section 2902.5(c)(2) 

of the final guidelines states that USDA 

will not designate items for preferred 

procurement that are determined to 

have mature markets. Mature markets 

are described as items that had 

significant national market penetration 

in 1972. USDA contacted 

manufacturers, manufacturing 

associations, and industry researchers to 

determine if, in 1972, biobased products 

had a significant market share within 

any of the items proposed for 

designation today. USDA found that 

biobased products within none of the 10 

items proposed for designation today 

had a significant market share in 1972 

and that, generally, the companies that 

produce biobased products within these 

proposed designated items have been in 

business for only 10 to 20 years. 

Overlap with EPA-Designated 

Recovered Content Products. In today’s 

proposed rule, 4 of the 10 items may 

overlap with EPA-designated recovered 

content products. These four items are: 

Insulating foam, composite panels, 

fertilizers, and sorbents. For these four 

items, USDA is requesting that certain 

information on the qualifying biobased 

products be made available by their 

manufacturers to assist Federal agencies 

in determining if an overlap exists 

between the qualifying biobased 

product and the applicable EPAdesignated 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47571 

the basis of their use in products and 

systems designed or procured for 

combat or combat-related missions. 

USDA believes it is inappropriate to 

apply the biobased purchasing 

requirement to tactical equipment 

unless the Department of Defense has 

documented that these products can 

meet the performance requirements for 

such equipment and are available in 

sufficient supply to meet domestic and 

overseas deployment needs. After 

evaluating these situations for each of 

the 10 items being proposed for 

designation, USDA is proposing to 

exempt fluid-filled transformers from 

preferred procurement under the FB4P 

when used in combat or combat-related 

missions. 

USDA is proposing an exemption for 

all designated items when used in 

spacecraft systems and launch support 

equipment, because failure of such 

items could lead to catastrophic 

consequences. Many, if not all, items 

that USDA is or is planning to designate 

for preferred procurement are or will be 

used in space applications. Frequently, 

such applications used these items in 

ways that are different from their more 

‘‘conventional’’ use on Earth. It is 

difficult, if not impossible, to forecast 

what situations may occur when these 

items are used in space and how they 

will perform. Therefore, USDA believes 

is it reasonable to limit the preferred 

procurement program to items used in 

more conventional applications and is 

proposing to exempt all designated 

items used in space applications from 

the FB4P. 

For each item being proposed for 

exemption, the exemption does not 

extend to contractors performing work 

for DoD or NASA. For example, if a 

contractor is producing a part for use on 

the space shuttle, the metalworking 

fluid the contractor uses to produce the 

part should be biobased (provided it 

meets the specifications for 

metalworking). The exemption does 

apply, however, if the product being 

purchased by the contractor is for use in 

combat or combat-related missions or 

for use in space applications. For 

example, if the part being produced by 

the contractor would actually be part of 

the space shuttle, then the exemption 

applies. 

Each of the 10 proposed designated 

items are discussed in the following 

sections. 

1. Adhesive and Mastic Removers 

Adhesive and mastic removers 

represent that group of industrial 

cleaning solvent products formulated 

for use in removing asbestos, carpet, and 

ceramic tile mastics as well as adhesive 

materials, including glue, tape, and 

gum, from various surface types. 

Products in this item eliminate the need 

to sand and grind glue and adhesives 

from parts, floors, or walls, significantly 

reducing the time required on a project. 

These products are typically formulated 

from natural soy-based or citrus-based 

feedstocks. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased adhesive and mastic 

removers, USDA identified 11 different 

manufacturers producing 13 individual 

biobased products. These 11 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

adhesive and mastic removers, merely 

those identified during USDA 

information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that each of 

these products is being used 

commercially. Using the procedure 

described earlier in this notice, no 

industry standard performance tests 

were identified by the manufacturers 

who submitted information on these 

products or others. 

USDA contacted procurement 

officials with various procuring 

agencies, including the General Services 

Administration, several offices within 

the Defense Logistics Agency, OFEE, 

USDA Departmental Administration, 

the National Park Service, the EPA, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory, and OMB, in 

an effort to gather information on the 

purchases of products within the 10 

items proposed for designation today. 

Communications with these officials 

lead to the conclusion that obtaining 

credible current usage statistics and 

specific potential markets within the 

Federal government for biobased 

products is not possible at this time. 

Most of the contacted officials reported 

that procurement data are reported in 

higher level groupings of materials and 

supplies than the proposed designated 

items. Also, the purchasing of such 

materials as part of contracted services 

and with individual purchase cards 

used to purchase products locally 

further obscures credible data on 

purchases of specific products. 

USDA also investigated the Web site 

http://www.fedbizopps.gov, a site which 

lists Federal contract purchase 

opportunities greater than $25,000. The 

information provided on this Web site, 

however, is for broad categories of 

products rather than the specific types 

of products that are included in today’s 

rulemaking. Therefore, USDA has been 

unable to obtain data on the amount of 

adhesive and mastic removers 

purchased by procuring agencies. 

However, Federal agencies routinely 

procure building construction, 

renovation, cleaning, and repair services 

and materials, including adhesive and 

mastic removers. Thus, they have a need 

for adhesive and mastic removers and 

for services that require the use of 

adhesive and mastic removers. 

Designation of adhesive and mastic 

removers will promote the use of 

biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased adhesive and mastic 

removers was performed for two of the 

products using the BEES analytical tool. 

Table 1 summarizes the BEES results for 

the two adhesive and mastic removers. 

As seen in Table 1, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, ranges from 0.0257 to 

0.0625 points per gallon. The 

environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to one gallon of the product, 

expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. For 

example, the total amount of criteria air 

pollutants emitted in the U.S. in one 

year was divided by the total U.S. 

population to derive a ‘‘criteria air 

pollutants per person value.’’ The 

production and use of one gallon of 

adhesive and mastic remover sample A 

was estimated to contribute 0.000002 

percent of this value. 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR ADHESIVE AND MASTIC REMOVERS

Parameters 

Adhesive and mastic 

removers 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0257 0 .0625 

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47572 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR ADHESIVE AND MASTIC REMOVERS—Continued 

Parameters 

Adhesive and mastic 

removers 

Sample A Sample B 

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 0 .0007 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0052 0 .0170 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0015 0 .0111 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0110 0 .0157 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0035 0 .0062 

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

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0025 0 .0085 

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

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

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0011 0 .0019 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0007 0 .0014 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 2 ........................................................................................................... 15 .99 17 .66 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15 .99 17 .66 

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

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 gallon. 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

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, the reader should be aware 

that comparisons of the environmental 

performance scores are valid only 

among products within a designated 

item. Thus, comparisons of the scores 

presented in Table 1 and the scores 

presented in Tables 2 through 10 for 

other proposed designated items in this 

preamble are not meaningful. 

The numbers in parentheses following 

each of the 12 environmental impacts 

listed in the tables in this preamble 

indicate weighting factors. The 

weighting factors represent the relative 

importance of the 12 environmental 

impacts, including human health 

impacts, that contribute to the BEES 

Environmental Score. They are derived 

from lists of the relative importance of 

these impacts developed by the EPA 

Science Advisory Board for the purpose 

of advising EPA as to how best to 

allocate its limited resources among 

environmental impact areas. Note that a 

lower Environmental Performance score 

is better than a higher score. 

Life cycle costs presented in Tables 1 

through 10 in this preamble are per the 

appropriate functional unit for the 

proposed designated item. The life cycle 

costs of the submitted adhesive and 

mastic removers range from $15.99 to 

$17.66 (present value dollars) per 

gallon. Present value dollars presented 

in this preamble represent the sum of all 

costs associated with a product over a 

fixed period of time, including any 

applicable costs for purchase, 

installation, replacement, operation, 

maintenance and repair, and disposal. 

Present value dollars presented in this 

preamble reflect 2005 dollars. Dollars 

are expressed in present value terms to 

adjust for the effects of inflation. Future 

costs are discounted to present value 

using the OMB discount rate of 3.9 

percent. 

The complete results of the BEES 

analysis, extrapolated to the item level, 

for each item proposed for designation 

in today’s proposed rulemaking can be 

found at http:// 

www.biobased.oce.usda.gov. 

2. Insulating Foam for Wall 

Construction 

Insulating foam for wall construction 

represents that group of products 

designed as spray-in-place insulation 

systems for residential or commercial 

construction applications. Products in 

this item provide a sealed thermal 

barrier, which significantly simplifies 

construction and reduces the effort 

required on a project. Biobased 

insulating foams are typically 

formulated from natural soy-based 

feedstocks. 

Qualifying products within this item 

may overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: 

Construction—Building Insulation. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased insulating foam for wall 

construction, USDA identified 14 

different manufacturers producing 21 

individual biobased products. These 14 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

insulating foam for wall construction, 

merely those identified during USDA 

information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that each of 

these products has been tested against 

one or more industry performance 

standards and is being used 

commercially. While other applicable 

performance standards may exist, 

applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• ASTM E84–05, Standard Test 

Method for Surface Burning 

Characteristics of Building Materials; 

• ASTM C177–04, Standard Test 

Method for Steady-State Heat Flux 

Measurements and Thermal 

Transmission Properties by Means of 

the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus; 

• ASTM E283–04, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Rate of Air 

Leakage Through Exterior Windows, 

Curtain Walls, and Doors Under 

Specified Pressure Differences Across 

the Specimen; 

• ASTM D1622–03, Standard Test 

Method for Apparent Density of Rigid 

Cellular Plastics; 

• ASTM E96/E96M–05, Standard Test 

Methods for Water Vapor Transmission 

of Materials; 

• ASTM 90–04, Standard Test 

Method for Laboratory Measurement of 

Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of 

Building Partitions and Elements; 

• ASTM C423–02a, Standard Test 

Method for Sound Absorption and 

Sound Absorption Coefficients by the 

Reverberation Room Method; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47573 

• ASTM C518–04, Standard Test 

Method for Steady-State Thermal 

Transmission Properties by Means of 

the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus; and 

• ASTM E84–05e1, Standard Test 

Method for Surface Burning 

Characteristics of Building Materials. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

described in the section on adhesive 

and mastic removers. These attempts 

were largely unsuccessful. However, 

Federal agencies routinely procure 

building construction, renovation, and 

repair services and materials, including 

insulating foam for wall construction. 

Thus, they have a need for insulating 

foam for wall construction and for 

services that require the use of 

insulating foam for wall construction. 

Designation of insulating foam for wall 

construction will promote the use of 

biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased insulating foam for 

wall construction was performed for one 

of the products using the BEES 

analytical tool. Table 2 summarizes the 

BEES results for the one sample of 

insulating foam for wall construction. 

As seen in Table 2, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, was 0.0018 points for a 

quantity of material necessary to 

provide one square foot of insulated 

wall surface for a period of 50 years. 

The environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to the quantity of material 

necessary to provide one square foot of 

insulated wall surface for a period of 50 

years, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR INSULATING FOAM FOR WALL CONSTRUCTION

Parameters 

Insulating 

foam for wall 

construction 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ............................................................................................................................... 0 .0018 

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

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

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 

Eutrophication (5%) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0009 

Global Warming (16%) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 

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

Human Health (11%) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0003 

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

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

Smog (6%) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0 .0001 

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

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs($)) 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 1 .10 

First Cost ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 .15 

Future Cost (3.9%) 3 .............................................................................................................................................................................. ¥0 .05 

Functional Unit ....................................................................................................................................................................................... (4) 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3 Note that because this product has a residual (or salvage) value after its initial use, the future cost is a negative value. 

4The quantity of material necessary to provide one square foot of insulated wall surface for a period of 50 years. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

insulating foam for wall construction 

was $1.10 (present value dollars) for a 

quantity of material necessary to 

provide one square foot of insulated 

wall surface for a period of 50 years. 

3. Hand Cleaners and Sanitizers 

Hand cleaners and sanitizers 

represent that group of personal care 

products formulated for use in cleaning 

and sanitizing human hands. Products 

in this item, which may be used with or 

without water, are used to remove a 

variety of different soils, greases, and 

bacteria. These products significantly 

reduce the potential for transmitting 

harmful bacteria. Biobased hand 

cleaners and sanitizers are typically 

formulated from natural corn, soy, or 

citrus-based feedstocks. 

Procuring agencies should note that, 

as discussed in section II of this 

preamble, not all biobased cleaning 

products are ‘‘environmentally 

preferable’’ to non-biobased products. 

Unless cleaning products have been 

formulated to contain no (or reduced 

levels of) metals and toxic and 

hazardous constituents, they can be 

harmful to aquatic life, the environment, 

or workers. When purchasing 

environmentally preferable cleaning 

products, Federal agencies must 

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

of the manufacture, use, and disposal of 

both biobased and non-biobased 

products. 

As noted earlier in this preamble, 

USDA is requesting comment on 

whether there should be one or more 

subcategories within this item based on 

required performance properties of the 

item. For example, hand cleaners and 

sanitizers used in medical situations 

might be required to meet different 

performance standards from those used 

in households. If this is the case, then 

there may be differences in the level of 

biobased content depending on the 

performance standard to be met. As 

proposed, USDA is not differentiating 

between settings in which hand cleaners 

and sanitizers are used. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased hand cleaners and 

sanitizers, USDA identified 36 different 

manufacturers producing 73 individual 

biobased products. These 36 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

hand cleaners and sanitizers, merely 

those identified during USDA 

information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that each of 

these products has been tested against 

one or more industry performance 

standards and is being used 

commercially. While other applicable 

performance standards may exist, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47574 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• American Type Culture Collection 

Number 11229, Organism: Escherichia 

coli (Migula) Castellani, and Chalmers; 

and 

• American Type Culture Collection 

Number 6539 Organism: Salmonella 

enterica subsp. enterica (ex Kauffmann 

and Edwards) Le Minor and Popoff 

serovar Typhi; deposited as Salmonella 

typhi (Schroeter) Warren and Scott. 

Some products within this item may 

require ‘‘higher’’ standards than other 

products. For example, hand cleaners 

and sanitizers used in hospitals and 

medical clinics may require higher 

levels of performance than those used in 

typical households. Procuring agencies, 

therefore, may need to contact the 

manufacturer of a biobased product or 

access the FB4P Web site to obtain 

additional information on the 

performance specification of a product 

within this item. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

described in the section on adhesive 

and mastic removers. These attempts 

were largely unsuccessful. However, 

Federal agencies routinely procure 

washroom and janitorial services and 

materials, including hand cleaners and 

sanitizers. Thus, they have a need for 

hand cleaners and sanitizers and for 

services that require the use of hand 

cleaners and sanitizers. Designation of 

hand cleaners and sanitizers will 

promote the use of biobased products, 

furthering the objectives of this 

program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased hand cleaners and 

sanitizers was performed for three of the 

products using the BEES analytical tool. 

Table 3 summarizes the BEES results for 

the three hand cleaners and sanitizers. 

As seen in Table 3, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, ranges from 0.0227 to 

0.0412 points per gallon of hand cleaner 

and sanitizer. The environmental 

performance score indicates the share of 

annual per capita U.S. environmental 

impacts that is attributable to one gallon 

of the product, expressed in 100ths of 1 

percent. 

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR HAND CLEANERS AND SANITIZERS

Parameters 

Hand cleaners and sanitizers 

Sample A Sample B Sample C 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ........................................................................... 0 .0227 0 .0347 0 .0412 

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

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) ................................................................................................................ 0 .0001 0 .0002 0 .0004 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) .................................................................................................................. 0 .0112 0 .0128 0 .0125 

Eutrophication (5%) ........................................................................................................................... 0 .0007 0 .0034 0 .0052 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) ................................................................................................................ 0 .0063 0 .0077 0 .0102 

Global Warming (16%) ...................................................................................................................... 0 .0015 0 .0028 0 .0047 

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

Human Health (11%) ......................................................................................................................... 0 .0017 0 .0053 0 .0058 

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

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

Smog (6%) ......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0008 0 .0015 0 .0014 

Water Intake (3%) .............................................................................................................................. 0 .0004 0 .0010 0 .0010 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 ................................................................................ 17 .02 17 .30 21 .24 

First Cost ........................................................................................................................................... 17 .02 17 .30 21 .24 

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

Functional Unit ................................................................................................................................... 1 gallon. 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

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 

hand cleaners and sanitizers range from 

$17.02 to $21.24 (present value dollars) 

per gallon. 

4. Composite Panels 

Composite panels represent that 

group of engineered products designed 

for use in non-structural construction 

applications, including wall panels, 

shelving, decorative panels, lavatory 

dividers, and exterior signs. Biobased 

composite panels are typically 

formulated from natural wheat or rice 

straw, recycled or forest clean-up wood, 

and paper industry wastes. This item 

applies to both interior and exterior 

applications. However, some products 

within this item may not be applicable 

to all exterior applications, which may 

require specific insulating values and 

moisture protection properties. 

Procuring agencies, therefore, need to 

assess an individual product’s 

performance specifications before using 

in exterior applications. 

Qualifying products within this item 

may overlap with the following three 

EPA-designated recovered content 

product: Construction—Laminated 

Paperboard and Structural Foam Board; 

Construction—Shower and Restroom 

Dividers; and Miscellaneous Products—

Signage. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased composite panels, USDA 

identified 26 different manufacturers 

producing 51 individual biobased 

products. These 26 manufacturers do 

not necessarily include all 

manufacturers of biobased composite 

panels, merely those identified during 

USDA information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that each of 

these products has been tested against 

one or more industry performance 

standards and is being used 

commercially. While other applicable 

performance standards may exist, 

applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47575 

• ASTM C473–03, Standard Test 

Methods for Physical Testing of Gypsum 

Panel Products; 

• ASTM D1037–99, Standard Test 

Methods for Evaluating Properties of 

Wood-Base Fiber and Particle Panel 

Materials; 

• ASTM D3273–00, Standard Test 

Method for Resistance to Growth of 

Mold on the Surface of Interior Coatings 

in an Environmental Chamber; 

• ASTM D4060–01, Standard Test 

Method for Abrasion Resistance of 

Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser; 

• ASTM E72–05, Standard Test 

Methods of Conducting Strength Tests 

of Panels for Building Construction; 

• ASTM E84–05, Standard Test 

Method for Surface Burning 

Characteristics of Building Materials 

• ASTM E90–04, Standard Test 

Method for Laboratory Measurement of 

Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of 

Building Partitions and Elements; 

• ASTM E119–00a, Standard Test 

Methods for Fire Tests of Building 

Construction and Materials; and 

• ASTM E413–04, Classification for 

Rating Sound Insulation. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

described in the section on adhesive 

and mastic removers. These attempts 

were largely unsuccessful. However, 

Federal agencies routinely procure 

building construction, renovation, and 

repair services and materials, including 

composite panels. Thus, they have a 

need for composite panels and for 

services that require the use of 

composite panels. Designation of 

composite panels will promote the use 

of biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased composite panels was 

performed for two of the products using 

the BEES analytical tool. Table 4 

summarizes the BEES results for the two 

composite panels. As seen in Table 4, 

the environmental performance score, 

which includes human health, ranges 

from 0.0085 to 0.0113 points per square 

foot of partition for a period of 50 years. 

The environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to one square foot of 

partition for a period of 50 years, 

expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR COMPOSITE PANELS

Parameters 

Composite panels 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0085 0 .0113 

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

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

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0004 0 .0010 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0001 0 .0001 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0044 0 .0055 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0012 0 .0016 

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

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0017 0 .0026 

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

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

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0004 0 .0004 

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

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 2 .37 4 .96 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 .37 4 .96 

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

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. one square foot of partition 

over 50 years. 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

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 

composite panels range from $2.37 to 

$4.96 (present value dollars) per square 

foot of partition for a period of 50 years. 

5. Fluid-Filled Transformers 

Fluid-filled transformers represent 

that group of electric power 

transformers designed to utilize a 

dielectric (non-conducting) fluid as a 

means of insulating and cooling the 

electro-mechanical equipment inside 

the transformer. 

The electro-mechanical components 

of a fluid-filled transformer are the same 

between fluid-filled transformers, with 

only the type of fluid varying. The 

dielectric fluid used in fluid-filled 

transformers is the only component that 

is a biobased material. Therefore, the 

information presented in this preamble 

is based on analyses performed on 

biobased transformer fluids. However, 

USDA is proposing to designate the item 

as ‘‘fluid-filled transformers,’’ because 

end users generally purchase ready-touse transformers rather than purchasing 

the electro-mechanical components 

separately from the fluid. Biobased 

transformer fluids are typically 

formulated from vegetable oils, such as 

soybean oil. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in products 

and systems designed or procured for 

combat or combat-related missions and 

in spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

USDA identified 5 different 

manufacturers producing 12 individual 

biobased products that are used as 

transformer fluids in fluid-filled 

transformers. These five manufacturers 

do not necessarily include all 

manufacturers of biobased transformer 

fluids, merely those identified during 

USDA information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that each of 

these products has been tested against 

one or more industry performance 

standards and is being used 

commercially. While other applicable 

performance standards may exist, 

applicable industry performance 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47576 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• ASTM D287–92 (2000) e1, Standard 

Test Method for API Gravity of Crude 

Petroleum and Petroleum Products 

(Hydrometer Method); 

• ASTM D2882–00, Standard Test 

Method for Indicating the Wear 

Characteristics of Petroleum and NonPetroleum Hydraulic Fluids in Constant 

Volume Vane Pump (Withdrawn 2003); 

• American Petroleum Institute API 

GL–3, Lubricant with light EP effect for 

transmissions and non-hypoid gear 

drives; 

• General Motors GM LS–2, General 

Motors Maintenance Lubricant Standard 

LS–2 for Industrial Equipment and 

Machine Tools; 

• German Institute for 

Standardization DIN51524, Pressure 

fluids; hydraulic oils; HL, HLP, and 

HVLP hydraulic oils; minimum 

requirements. 

• ASTM D1816, Standard Test 

Method for Dielectric Breakdown 

Voltage of Insulating Oils of Petroleum 

Origin Using VDE Electrodes; 

• ASTM D877–02e1, Standard Test 

Method for Dielectric Breakdown 

Voltage of Insulating Liquids Using Disk 

Electrodes; 

• ASTM D924–04, Standard Test 

Method for Dissipation Factor (or Power 

Factor) and Relative Permittivity 

(Dielectric Constant) of Electrical 

Insulating Liquids; 

• ASTM D1169–02, Standard Test 

Method for Specific Resistance 

(Resistivity) of Electrical Insulating 

Liquids; 

• ASTM D3300–00, Standard Test 

Method for Dielectric Breakdown 

Voltage of Insulating Oils of Petroleum 

Origin Under Impulse Conditions; 

• ASTM D2300–00, Standard Test 

Method for Gassing of Insulating 

Liquids Under Electrical Stress and 

Ionization (Modified Pirelli Method); 

• ASTM D1298–99 (2005), Standard 

Test Method for Density, Relative 

Density (Specific Gravity), or API 

Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid 

Petroleum Products by Hydrometer 

Method; 

• ASTM D971–99a (2004), Standard 

Test Method for Interfacial Tension of 

Oil Against Water by the Ring Method; 

• EPA 9045C, Corrosivity and pH 

Determination; 

• ASTM D974–04, Standard Test 

Method for Acid and Base Number by 

Color-Indicator Titration; 

• ASTM D445–04e2, Standard Test 

Method for Kinematic Viscosity of 

Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and 

the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity); 

• ASTM 1533B, Water in Insulating 

Fluids; 

• CPS Method, Percent Saturation of 

Moisture; 

• ASTM D2779–92 (2002), Standard 

Test Method for Estimation of Solubility 

of Gases in Petroleum Liquids; 

• ASTM D1524–94 (2004), Standard 

Test Method for Visual Examination of 

Used Electrical Insulating Oils of 

Petroleum Origin in the Field; 

• ASTM D1500–04a, Standard Test 

Method for ASTM Color of Petroleum 

Products (ASTM Color Scale); 

• ASTM D93–02a, Standard Test 

Methods for Flash-Point by PenskyMartens Closed Cup Tester; 

• ASTM D92–05a, Standard Test 

Method for Flash and Fire Points by 

Cleveland Open Cup Tester; 

• ASTM D97–05a, Standard Test 

Method for Pour Point of Petroleum 

Products; 

• ASTM D2766–95 (2005), Standard 

Test Method for Specific Heat of Liquids 

and Solids; 

• ASTM E1269–05 Standard Test 

Method for Determining Specific Heat 

Capacity by Differential Scanning 

Calorimetry; 

• APHA SM 5210B, (APHA = 

American Public Health Association) 

• Biochemical Oxygen Demand 

(BOD); 

• EPA OPPTS 835.3100, Fate, 

Transport, and Transformation Test 

Guidelines for Aerobic Aquatic 

Biodegradation and Anaerobic 

Biodegradability of Organic Chemicals; 

and 

• OECD G.L 203, Acute Toxicity Test 

(Trout Fry). 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

described in the section on adhesive 

and mastic removers. These attempts 

were largely unsuccessful. However, 

many Federal facilities utilize, or 

contract for services that utilize, 

transformers as part of their electrical 

distribution systems. Thus, Federal 

agencies have a need for fluid-filled 

transformers and for services that 

require the use of fluid-filled 

transformers. Designation of fluid-filled 

transformers will promote the use of 

biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased transformer fluids was 

performed for two of the products using 

the BEES analytical tool. Table 5 

summarizes the BEES results for the two 

biobased transformer fluids. As seen in 

Table 5, the environmental performance 

score, which includes human health, 

ranges from 0.0198 to 0.0581 points per 

gallon of the transformer fluids. The 

environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to 1 gallon of transformer 

fluid, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR FLUID-FILLED TRANSFORMERS

Parameters 

Transformer fluids 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0198 0 .0581 

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

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 0 .0003 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0046 0 .0204 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0007 0 .0066 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0066 0 .0130 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0033 0 .0052 

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

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0029 0 .0047 

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

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

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0007 0 .0040 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0008 0 .0039 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 8 .50 9 .10 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 .50 9 .10 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47577 

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR FLUID-FILLED TRANSFORMERS—Continued 

Parameters 

Transformer fluids 

Sample A Sample B 

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

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 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 

biobased transformer fluids range from 

$8.50 to $9.10 (present value dollars) 

per gallon of transformer fluid. 

6. Biodegradable Containers 

Biodegradable containers represent 

that group of products capable of 

complying with the specifications 

established in the biodegradability 

standard ASTM D6400 ‘‘Standard 

Specifications for Compostable Plastics’’

and designed to be used for temporary 

storage or transportation of materials, 

such as food items. Products in this item 

are typically used by quick-serve 

restaurants, food management 

companies, universities, and 

government organizations. Biobased 

biodegradable containers are typically 

produced from natural starch-based or 

synthetic corn-based feedstocks and are 

readily biodegradable through 

composting. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased biodegradable 

containers, USDA identified four 

different manufacturers producing six 

individual biobased products. These 

four manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

biodegradable containers, merely those 

identified during USDA information 

gathering activities. Information 

supplied by these manufacturers 

indicates that each of these products has 

been tested against one or more industry 

performance standards and is being 

used commercially. While other 

applicable performance standards may 

exist, applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• ASTM D6400–04, Standard 

Specification for Compostable Plastics; 

and 

• Biodegradable Products Institute 

Certified Compostable plastic products 

will biodegrade and compost 

satisfactorily in actively managed 

compost facilities. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

described in the section on adhesive 

and mastic removers. These attempts 

were largely unsuccessful. However, 

Federal agencies routinely perform, or 

procure contract services to perform, 

activities such as food preparation and 

materials storage that utilize containers. 

Thus, they have a need for containers 

and for services that require the use of 

containers. Designation of biodegradable 

containers will promote the use of 

biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased biodegradable 

containers was performed for two of the 

products using the BEES analytical tool. 

Table 6 summarizes the BEES results for 

the two biodegradable containers. As 

seen in Table 6, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, ranges from 0.0003 to 

0.0008 points per biodegradable 

container. The environmental 

performance score indicates the share of 

annual per capita U.S. environmental 

impacts that is attributable to one 

biodegradable container, expressed in 

100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR BIODEGRADABLE CONTAINERS

Parameters 

Biodegradable containers 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0003 0 .0008 

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

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

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0002 0 .0001 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0001 0 .0004 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0000 0 .0001 

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

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0001 

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

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

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0000 0 .0000 

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

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 0 .05 0 .10 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .05 0 .10 

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

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 biodegradable container. 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

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


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47578 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

biodegradable containers range from 

$0.05 to $0.10 (present value dollars) 

per biodegradable container. 

7. Fertilizers 

Fertilizers represent that group of 

products formulated or processed for 

use in soil improvement applications. 

Products in this item provide moisture 

holding capacity, nutrients for plant 

growth, and/or beneficial bacteria to 

convert nutrients into plant usable 

forms. These products are used to 

provide added nutrition to the sports 

turf, golf course, organic farming, 

horticulture, lawn care, landscape, and 

nursery industries. Biobased fertilizers 

are typically produced from natural 

agricultural waste feedstocks such as 

meat and poultry by-products, animal 

wastes, grocery scraps, restaurant 

grease, and bakery wastes. 

Qualifying products within this item 

may overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: Fertilizers 

Made From Recovered Organic 

Materials. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased fertilizers, USDA 

identified 15 different manufacturers 

producing 30 individual biobased 

products. These 15 manufacturers do 

not necessarily include all 

manufacturers of biobased fertilizers, 

merely those identified during USDA 

information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that each of 

these products has been tested against 

one or more industry performance 

standards and is being used 

commercially. While other applicable 

performance standards may exist, 

applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• Organic Materials Review Institute, 

listed seal assures the stability of a 

product for certified organic production, 

handling, and processing; and 

• United States Composting Council 

Seal of Testing Assurance. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

described in the section on adhesive 

and mastic removers. These attempts 

were largely unsuccessful. However, 

Federal agencies routinely perform, or 

procure contract services to perform, 

activities such as landscape 

maintenance and the production of 

agricultural products that require the 

use of fertilizers. Thus, they have a need 

for fertilizers and for services that 

require the use of fertilizers. Designation 

of fertilizers will promote the use of 

biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased fertilizers was 

performed for two of the products using 

the BEES analytical tool. Table 7 

summarizes the BEES results for the two 

fertilizers. As seen in Table 7, the 

environmental performance score, 

which includes human health, ranges 

from 0.3299 to 0.9576 points per the 

quantity of fertilizer recommended for 1 

acre over 3 years of use. The 

environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to the quantity of fertilizer 

recommended for 1 acre over 3 years of 

use, expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR FERTILIZERS

Parameters 

Fertilizers 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .3299 0 .9576 

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

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0020 0 .0039 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0212 0 .1754 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0061 0 .0407 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .1455 0 .1203 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0493 0 .4941 

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

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0809 0 .0753 

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

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

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0249 0 .0221 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0000 0 .0258 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 17 .64 195 .43 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 .64 132 .00 

Future Cost (3.9%) ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 .00 63 .43 

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. (3) 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3The quantity of fertilizer recommended for 1 acre over 3 years of use. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

fertilizers range from $17.64 to $195.43 

(present value dollars) for the quantity 

of fertilizer recommended for 1 acre 

over 3 years of use. 

8. Metalworking Fluids 

Metalworking fluids represent that 

group of products formulated to provide 

cooling, lubrication, and corrosion 

prevention when applied to metal 

feedstock during operations such as 

grinding and machining. These products 

are designed for continuous use in 

systems that re-circulate the fluid 

through the use of a reservoir. These 

products are typically formulated from 

vegetable seed oils and are sold as 

concentrates designed to be diluted with 

water or other solvents prior to 

application. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased metalworking fluids, 

USDA identified 16 different 

manufacturers producing 45 individual 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47579 

biobased products. These 16 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

metalworking fluids, merely those 

identified during USDA information 

gathering activities. Information 

supplied by these manufacturers 

indicates that each of these products has 

been tested against one or more industry 

performance standards and is being 

used commercially. While other 

applicable performance standards may 

exist, applicable industry performance 

standards and other relevant 

measurements of performance against 

which these products have been 

typically tested, as identified by 

manufacturers of products within this 

item, include: 

• ASTM D3233–93 (2003), Standard 

Test Methods for Measurement of 

Extreme Pressure Properties of Fluid 

Lubricants (Falex Pin and Vee Block 

Methods); 

• ASTM D3946–92 (1997), Standard 

Test Method for Evaluating the Bacteria 

Resistance of Water-Dilutable 

Metalworking Fluids (Withdrawn 2004); 

and 

• Readily Biodegradable EPA 560/6–

82–003, monitors the conversion of the 

test material carbon to carbon dioxide, 

the product must biodegrade in 28 days 

to pass. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

described in the section on adhesive 

and mastic removers. These attempts 

were largely unsuccessful. However, 

Federal agencies routinely own and 

operate fabrication and repair facilities 

that utilize the types of metal machining 

equipment that require the use of 

metalworking fluids. In addition, many 

Federal agencies contract for services 

involving the use of such facilities and 

equipment. Thus, they have a need for 

metalworking fluids and for services 

that require the use of metalworking 

fluids. Designation of metalworking 

fluids will promote the use of biobased 

products, furthering the objectives of 

this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased metalworking fluids 

was performed for two of the products 

using the BEES analytical tool. Table 8 

summarizes the BEES results for the two 

biobased metalworking fluids. As seen 

in Table 8, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, ranges from 0.0018 to 

0.0036 points per gallon of diluted and 

ready to use fluid. The environmental 

performance score indicates the share of 

annual per capita U.S. environmental 

impacts that is attributable to one 

diluted and ready to use gallon of fluid, 

expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 8.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR METALWORKING FLUIDS

Parameters 

Metalworking fluids 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0018 0 .0036 

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

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

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0004 0 .0026 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0001 0 .0001 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0008 0 .0002 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0002 0 .0002 

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

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0002 0 .0001 

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

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

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0001 0 .0000 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0000 0 .0004 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 0 .72 0 .96 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .72 0 .96 

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

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. One diluted and ready to use 

gallon of fluid. 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

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 

metalworking fluids range from $0.72 to 

$0.96 (present value dollars) per gallon 

of diluted and ready to use fluid. 

9. Sorbents 

Sorbents represent that group of 

materials formulated for clean up and 

bioremediation of oil and chemical 

spills, disposal of liquid materials, and 

prevention of leakage or leaching in 

maintenance applications, shop floors, 

and fuel storage areas. Products in this 

item are normally light in weight, 

produce little dust, and provide 

absorbing capabilities through wicking 

or sponge-like action. Biobased sorbents 

are typically produced from corncobs, 

cotton fibers, nut pith and other plant 

fiber, often combined with gelling 

agents. 

Qualifying products within this item 

may overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: 

Miscellaneous—Sorbents. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased sorbents, USDA 

identified 16 different manufacturers 

producing 31 individual biobased 

products. These 16 manufacturers do 

not necessarily include all 

manufacturers of biobased sorbents, 

merely those identified during USDA 

information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that each of 

these products has been tested against 

one or more industry performance 

standards and is being used 

commercially. While other applicable 

performance standards may exist, 

applicable industry performance 

standards against which these products 

have been typically tested, as identified 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47580 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

by manufacturers of products within 

this item, include: 

• ASTM D726–94 (2003), Standard 

Test Method for Resistance of 

Nonporous Paper to Passage of Air; 

• ASTM D2974–00, Standard Test 

Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic 

Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils; 

and 

• Canadian General Standards Board 

CAN/CGSB–183.94, Method for Testing 

Sorbents. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

described in the section on adhesive 

and mastic removers. These attempts 

were largely unsuccessful. However, 

Federal agencies routinely perform, or 

procure services that perform, the types 

of clean-up and containment activities 

that would utilize sorbents. Thus, they 

have a need for sorbents and for services 

that require the use of sorbents. 

Designation of sorbents will promote the 

use of biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of sorbents was performed for two 

of the products using the BEES 

analytical tool. Table 9 summarizes the 

BEES results for the two sorbents. As 

seen in Table 9, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, ranges from 0.0957 to 

0.1159 points per the quantity of the 

analyzed sorbent required to absorb 1 

barrel of light crude oil. The 

environmental performance score 

indicates the share of annual per capita 

U.S. environmental impacts that is 

attributable to the quantity of the 

analyzed sorbent required to absorb 1 

barrel of light crude oil, expressed in 

100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 9.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR SORBENTS

Parameters 

Sorbents 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0957 0 .1159 

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

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0001 0 .0014 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0006 0 .0113 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0040 0 .0018 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0059 0 .0583 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0026 0 .0156 

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

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0020 0 .0221 

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

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

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0024 0 .0033 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0781 0 .0021 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 49 .94 11 .83 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 49 .94 11 .83 

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

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. (4) 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

3For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 4The quantity of the analyzed sorbent required to absorb 1 barrel of light crude oil. 

The life cycle cost of the submitted 

sorbents range from $11.83 to $49.94 

(present value dollars) per the quantity 

of the analyzed sorbent required to 

absorb 1 barrel of light crude oil. 

10. Graffiti and Grease Removers 

Graffiti and grease removers represent 

that group of industrial solvent products 

formulated to remove automotive, 

industrial, and kitchen soils and oils, 

including grease, paint, and other 

coatings, from hard surfaces. Biobased 

grease and graffiti removers are typically 

formulated from natural soy, corn, or 

citrus-based feedstocks and contain 

little to no hazardous ingredients. 

For the reasons cited earlier in this 

notice, USDA is proposing to exempt 

this item from preferred procurement 

under the FB4P when used in spacecraft 

systems and launch support equipment. 

For biobased graffiti and grease 

removers, USDA identified 26 different 

manufacturers producing 44 individual 

biobased products. These 26 

manufacturers do not necessarily 

include all manufacturers of biobased 

graffiti and grease removers, merely 

those identified during USDA 

information gathering activities. 

Information supplied by these 

manufacturers indicates that each of 

these products is being used 

commercially. While applicable 

performance standards and other 

measures of performance may exist, 

relevant measures of performance 

against which these products have been 

typically tested, as identified by 

manufacturers of products within this 

item, include: 

• Graffiti Performance Testing; and 

• Adhesive Testing in Screenprinting. 

USDA attempted to gather data on the 

potential market for biobased products 

within the Federal government as 

described in the section on adhesive 

and mastic removers. These attempts 

were largely unsuccessful. However, 

Federal agencies routinely perform, and 

procure services that perform, the types 

of clean-up activities that would utilize 

graffiti and grease removers. Thus, they 

have a need for graffiti and grease 

removers and for services that require 

the use of graffiti and grease removers. 

Designation of graffiti and grease 

removers will promote the use of 

biobased products, furthering the 

objectives of this program. 

An analysis of the environmental and 

human health benefits and the life cycle 

costs of biobased graffiti and grease 

removers was performed for two of the 

products using the BEES analytical tool. 

Table 10 summarizes the BEES results 

for the two graffiti and grease removers. 

As seen in Table 10, the environmental 

performance score, which includes 

human health, ranges from 0.0446 to 

0.0646 points per gallon of the graffiti 

and grease removers. The environmental 

performance score indicates the share of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47581 

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. 

annual per capita U.S. environmental 

impacts that is attributable to one gallon 

of the graffiti and grease removers, 

expressed in 100ths of 1 percent. 

TABLE 10.—SUMMARY OF BEES RESULTS FOR GRAFFITI AND GREASE REMOVERS

Parameters 

Graffiti and grease removers 

Sample A Sample B 

BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 ..................................................................................................... 0 .0446 0 .0646 

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

Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0003 0 .0007 

Ecological Toxicity (11%) ............................................................................................................................................ 0 .0039 0 .0172 

Eutrophication (5%) ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0012 0 .0112 

Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .0268 0 .0168 

Global Warming (16%) ................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0043 0 .0064 

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

Human Health (11%) ................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0045 0 .0089 

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

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

Smog (6%) ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 .0032 0 .0021 

Water Intake (3%) ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .0004 0 .0013 

Economic Performance (Life Cycle Costs ($)) 2 .......................................................................................................... 22 .16 22 .00 

First Cost ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22 .16 22 .00 

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

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 gallon. 

1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 

2 Costs are per functional unit. 

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 

graffiti and grease removers range from 

$22.00 to $22.16 (present value dollars) 

per gallon of graffiti and grease 

removers. 

C. Minimum Biobased Contents 

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

recommend minimum biobased content 

levels where appropriate. In today’s 

proposed rulemaking, USDA is 

proposing minimum biobased product 

content for each of the 10 items 

proposed for designation based on 

information currently available to 

USDA. 

As discussed in Section IV.A of this 

preamble, USDA relied entirely on 

manufacturers’ voluntary submission of 

samples to support the proposed 

designation of these 10 items. The data 

presented in the following paragraphs 

are the test results from all of the 

product samples that were submitted for 

analysis. It is the responsibility of the 

manufacturers to ‘‘self-certify’’ that each 

product being offered as a biobased 

product for preferred procurement 

contains qualifying feedstock. As 

contained in the Guidelines, USDA will 

consider qualifying feedstocks for 

biobased products originating in 

‘‘designated countries’’ (as that term is 

defined in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) 25.003)) as well as 

from the United States. USDA will 

develop a monitoring process for these 

self-certifications to ensure 

manufacturers are using qualifying 

feedstocks. If misrepresentations are 

found, USDA will remove the subject 

biobased product from the preferred 

procurement program and may take 

further actions as deemed appropriate. 

As a result of public comments 

received on the first designated items 

rulemaking proposal, USDA decided to 

account for the slight imprecision in the 

analytical method used to determine 

biobased content of products when 

establishing the minimum biobased 

content. Thus, rather than establishing 

the minimum biobased content for an 

item at the tested biobased content of 

the product selected as the basis for the 

minimum value, USDA is establishing 

the minimum biobased content at a 

level 3 percentage points less than the 

tested value. USDA believes that this 

adjustment is appropriate to account for 

the expected variations in analytical 

results. 

USDA has determined that setting a 

minimum biobased content for 

designated items is appropriate. 

Establishing a minimum biobased 

content will encourage competition 

among manufacturers to develop 

products with higher biobased contents 

and will prevent products with de 

minimus biobased content from being 

purchased as a means of satisfying the 

requirements of section 9002. USDA 

believes that it is in the best interest of 

the preferred procurement program for 

minimum biobased contents to be set at 

levels that will realistically allow 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow them 

to compete with non-biobased products 

in performance and economics. Setting 

the minimum biobased content for an 

item at a level met by several of the 

tested products will provide more 

products from which procurement 

officials may choose, will encourage the 

most widespread usage of biobased 

products by procuring agencies, and is 

expected to accomplish the objectives of 

section 9002. Procuring agencies are 

encouraged to seek products with the 

highest biobased content that is 

practicable in all 10 of the proposed 

designated items. 

The following paragraphs summarize 

the information that USDA used to 

propose minimum biobased contents 

within each proposed designated item. 

1. Adhesive and Mastic Removers 

Five of the 13 biobased adhesive and 

mastic removers identified have been 

tested for biobased content using ASTM 

D6866.1 The biobased content of these 

5 samples ranged from 61 percent to 99 

percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 58 percent, based on the product with 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47582 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

a biobased content of 61 percent. No 

industry standard performance tests 

have been identified for this item. Thus, 

although all products within this item 

perform essentially the same function, 

the performance of any individual 

product or the range of adhesive and 

mastic formulations that exist is 

unknown. Because USDA does not have 

performance information to determine 

whether the products with biobased 

contents on the lower end of the range 

have unique or more desirable 

characteristics, USDA is proposing to 

set the minimum biobased content at a 

level that will include all of the 

products sampled. USDA believes that it 

is in the best interest of the preferred 

procurement program for minimum 

biobased contents to be set at levels that 

will realistically allow products to 

possess the necessary performance 

attributes and allow them to compete 

with non-biobased products in 

performance and economics. 

Furthermore, setting the minimum 

biobased content level based on the 

lowest level found among the sampled 

products will offer procuring agencies 

more choices in selecting products to 

purchase and will encourage the most 

widespread usage of biobased products 

by procuring agencies. 

2. Insulating Foam for Wall 

Construction 

Two of the 21 identified biobased 

insulating foam for wall construction 

products have been tested for biobased 

content using ASTM D6866. The 

biobased content of these two products 

were 11 and 65 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set a minimum 

biobased content of 8 percent for this 

item, based on the product with a 

biobased content of 11 percent. The two 

products sampled provide insulating 

foam in two different manners. One is 

a ‘‘spray in place’’ foam and the other 

is a foam board. USDA believes that 

both products should be included in the 

preferred procurement program and, 

therefore, is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content at a level 

that will include both of the products 

sampled. USDA believes that it is in the 

best interest of the preferred 

procurement program for minimum 

biobased contents to be set at levels that 

will realistically allow products to 

possess the necessary performance 

attributes and allow them to compete 

with non-biobased products in 

performance and economics. USDA also 

believes that setting a minimum 

biobased content of 8 percent for this 

item is reasonable given that only two 

samples were tested, and that the 

alternative of basing the minimum 

biobased content on the 65 percent 

product could result in unforeseen 

limitations to the use of ‘‘spray in 

place’’ insulating foam. Lastly, setting 

the minimum biobased content level 

based on the lowest level found among 

the sampled products will offer 

procuring agencies more choices in 

selecting products to purchase and will 

encourage the most widespread usage of 

biobased products by procuring 

agencies. 

3. Hand Cleaners and Sanitizers 

Sixteen of the 73 biobased hand 

cleaners and sanitizers identified have 

been tested for biobased content using 

ASTM D6866. The biobased content of 

these 16 hand cleaners and sanitizers 

ranged from 21 percent to 95 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 18 percent, based on the product with 

a biobased content of 21 percent. Hand 

cleaners and sanitizers are formulated to 

meet a wide range of demands. Some 

are designed specifically to be used 

without water, while others are to be 

used with water; some are liquids and 

others are gels; some contain pumice, 

while others may contain moisturizers; 

and some are intended for use in health 

care facilities, while others are 

formulated to remove grease or similar 

substances. Because of this range in 

product characteristics, USDA is 

proposing to set the minimum biobased 

content at a level that will include all 

of the products sampled. USDA believes 

that it is in the best interest of the 

preferred procurement program for 

minimum biobased contents to be set at 

levels that will realistically allow 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow them 

to compete with non-biobased products 

in performance and economics. 

Furthermore, setting the minimum 

biobased content level based on the 

lowest level found among the sampled 

products will offer procuring agencies 

more choices in selecting products to 

purchase and will encourage the most 

widespread usage of biobased products 

by procuring agencies. 

4. Composite Panels 

Eight of the 51 biobased composite 

panels identified have been tested for 

biobased content using ASTM D6866. 

The biobased content of these 8 

composite panels ranged from 29 

percent to 100 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 26 percent, based on the product with 

a biobased content of 29 percent. 

Composite panels are manufactured to 

meet a range of demands and may be 

formulated to meet specific 

applications. Because of this range in 

product characteristics, USDA is 

proposing to set the minimum biobased 

content at a level that will include all 

of the products sampled. USDA believes 

that it is in the best interest of the 

preferred procurement program for 

minimum biobased contents to be set at 

levels that will realistically allow 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow them 

to compete with non-biobased products 

in performance and economics. 

Furthermore, setting the minimum 

biobased content level based on the 

lowest level found among the sampled 

products will offer procuring agencies 

more choices in selecting products to 

purchase and will encourage the most 

widespread usage of biobased products 

by procuring agencies. 

5. Fluid-Filled Transformers 

Two of the 12 identified biobased 

fluids designed for use in fluid-filled 

transformers have been tested for 

biobased content using ASTM D6866. 

The biobased content of these two 

biobased fluids were 69 percent and 98 

percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 66 percent, based on the product with 

a biobased content of 69 percent. USDA 

believes that it is in the best interest of 

the preferred procurement program for 

minimum biobased contents to be set at 

levels that will realistically allow 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow them 

to compete with non-biobased products 

in performance and economics. USDA 

also believes that setting a minimum 

biobased content of 66 percent for this 

item is reasonable given that only two 

samples were tested, and that the 

alternative of basing the minimum 

biobased content on the 98 percent 

product could result in unforeseen 

limitations to the use of biobased fluidfilled transformers. Lastly, setting the 

minimum biobased content level based 

on the lowest level found among the 

sampled products will offer procuring 

agencies more choices in selecting 

products to purchase and will 

encourage the most widespread usage of 

biobased products by procuring 

agencies. 

6. Biodegradable Containers 

Two of the six available biobased 

biodegradable containers have been 

tested for biobased content using ASTM 

D6866. The biobased content of these 

two biodegradable container were 99 

percent and 100 percent. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47583 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 96 percent, based on the product with 

a biobased content of 99 percent. USDA 

believes that the slight difference 

between the biobased content of two 

products tested is insignificant, and 

establishing the minimum biobased 

content for the item based on the lower 

tested value offers procurement agents 

more choice in selecting products to 

purchase. 

7. Fertilizers 

Ten of the 30 biobased fertilizers 

identified have been tested for biobased 

content using ASTM D6866. The 

biobased content of these 10 biobased 

fertilizers ranged from 74 percent to 100 

percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 71 percent, based on the product with 

a biobased content of 74 percent. 

Fertilizers are designed to address a 

range of parameters, including, 

application method, nutrients contents, 

release rate of nutrients, soil types, crop 

types, and desired re-application 

intervals. Because of this range in 

product characteristics, USDA is 

proposing to set the minimum biobased 

content at a level that will include all 

of the products sampled. USDA believes 

that it is in the best interest of the 

preferred procurement program for 

minimum biobased contents to be set at 

levels that will realistically allow 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow them 

to compete with non-biobased products 

in performance and economics. 

Furthermore, setting the minimum 

biobased content level based on the 

lowest level found among the sampled 

products will offer procuring agencies 

more choices in selecting products to 

purchase and will encourage the most 

widespread usage of biobased products 

by procuring agencies. 

8. Metalworking Fluids 

Seventeen of the 45 biobased 

metalworking fluids identified have 

been tested for biobased content using 

ASTM D6866. The biobased content of 

these 17 biobased metalworking fluids 

ranged from 43 percent to 100 percent. 

Because biobased metalworking fluids 

are typically sold as concentrates to be 

diluted with either water or petroleumbased solvents before use, the biobased 

content of the fluids must be 

determined before dilution. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 40 percent, based on the product with 

a biobased content of 43 percent. The 

conditions under which metalworking 

fluids must perform are widely varied. 

Different types of machining operations 

and different metal feedstocks require 

different characteristics in the 

associated metalworking fluids. In some 

operations the ability to dissipate heat 

may be the most critical characteristic, 

while in others corrosion prevention 

may be most important. The ability of a 

metalworking fluid to be diluted with 

water is desirable in many situations, 

but may not be significant in others. 

Because of this range in product 

characteristics, USDA is proposing to 

set the minimum biobased content at a 

level that will include all of the 

products sampled. USDA believes that it 

is in the best interest of the preferred 

procurement program for minimum 

biobased contents to be set at levels that 

will realistically allow products to 

possess the necessary performance 

attributes and allow them to compete 

with non-biobased products in 

performance and economics. 

Furthermore, setting the minimum 

biobased content level based on the 

lowest level found among the sampled 

products will offer procuring agencies 

more choices in selecting products to 

purchase and will encourage the most 

widespread usage of biobased products 

by procuring agencies. 

9. Sorbents 

Seven of the 31 biobased sorbents 

identified have been tested for biobased 

content using ASTM D6866. The 

biobased content of these seven 

biobased sorbents ranged from 55 

percent to 100 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 52 percent, based on the product with 

a biobased content of 55 percent. 

Sorbents are used to absorb a variety of 

liquid materials and the sorbent 

formulation affects the absorbency of 

the sorbent. Because of this range in 

product characteristics, USDA is 

proposing to set the minimum biobased 

content at a level that will include all 

of the products sampled. USDA believes 

that it is in the best interest of the 

preferred procurement program for 

minimum biobased contents to be set at 

levels that will realistically allow 

products to possess the necessary 

performance attributes and allow them 

to compete with non-biobased products 

in performance and economics. 

Furthermore, setting the minimum 

biobased content level based on the 

lowest level found among the sampled 

products will offer procuring agencies 

more choices in selecting products to 

purchase and will encourage the most 

widespread usage of biobased products 

by procuring agencies. 

10. Graffiti and Grease Removers 

Eleven of the 44 biobased graffiti and 

grease removers identified have been 

tested for biobased content using ASTM 

D6866. The biobased content of these 11 

biobased graffiti and grease removers 

ranged from 24 percent to 100 percent. 

USDA is proposing to set the 

minimum biobased content for this item 

at 21 percent, based on the product with 

a biobased content of 24 percent. Graffiti 

and grease removers are formulated to 

remove a wide variety of paints and 

other marking materials, as well as 

grease, from many types of surfaces and 

using several different application 

techniques. For example, some graffiti 

and grease removers are sold as 

concentrates to be mixed with water, 

while others are designed to be used as 

purchased; some are designed to be 

sprayed on with power washers, while 

others are designed to be applied with 

brushes; and some are designed to 

provide a foaming action, while others 

are not. Because of this range in product 

characteristics, USDA is proposing to 

set the minimum biobased content at a 

level that will include all of the 

products sampled. USDA believes that it 

is in the best interest of the preferred 

procurement program for minimum 

biobased contents to be set at levels that 

will realistically allow products to 

possess the necessary performance 

attributes and allow them to compete 

with non-biobased products in 

performance and economics. 

Furthermore, setting the minimum 

biobased content level based on the 

lowest level found among the sampled 

products will offer procuring agencies 

more choices in selecting products to 

purchase and will encourage the most 

widespread usage of biobased products 

by procuring agencies. 

D. Effective Date for Procurement 

Preference and Incorporation Into 

Specifications 

USDA intends for the final rule to 

take effect thirty (30) days after 

publication of the final rule. However, 

under the terms of the proposed rule, 

procuring agencies would have a 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47584 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 

has not been quantified because the 

information necessary to estimate the 

effect does not exist. As was discussed 

earlier in this preamble, USDA made 

extensive efforts to obtain information 

on the Federal agencies’ usage of the 10 

items proposed for designation. These 

efforts were largely unsuccessful. 

Therefore, attempts to determine the 

economic impacts of today’s proposed 

rule would necessitate estimating the 

anticipated market penetration of 

biobased products, which would entail 

many assumptions and, thus, be of 

questionable value. Also, the program 

allows procuring agencies the option of 

not purchasing biobased products if the 

costs are deemed ‘‘unreasonable.’’

Under this program, the determination 

of ‘‘unreasonable’’ costs will be made by 

individual agencies. USDA knows these 

agencies will consider such factors as 

price, life-cycle costs, and 

environmental benefits in determining 

whether the cost of a biobased product 

is determined to be ‘‘reasonable’’ or 

‘‘unreasonable.’’ However, until the 

program is actually implemented by the 

various agencies, it is impossible to 

quantify the impact this option would 

have on the economic effect of the rule. 

Therefore, USDA relied on a qualitative 

assessment to reach the judgment that 

the annual economic effect of the 

designation of these 10 items is less 

than $100 million, and likely to be 

substantially less than $100 million. 

This judgment was based primarily on 

the offsetting nature of the program (an 

increase in biobased products 

purchased with a corresponding 

decrease in petroleum products 

purchased) and, secondarily, on the 

ability of procuring agencies not to 

purchase these items if costs are judged 

unreasonable, which would reduce the 

economic effect. 

1. Summary of Impacts 

Today’s proposed rulemaking is 

expected to have both positive and 

negative impacts to individual 

businesses, including small businesses. 

USDA anticipates that the biobased 

preferred procurement program will 

provide additional opportunities for 

businesses to begin supplying biobased 

materials to manufacturers of adhesive 

and mastic removers, insulating foam 

for wall construction, hand cleaners and 

sanitizers, composite panels, fluid-filled 

transformers, biodegradable containers, 

fertilizers, metalworking fluids, 

sorbents, and graffiti and grease 

removers and to begin supplying these 

products made with biobased materials 

to Federal agencies and their 

contractors. In addition, other 

businesses, including small businesses, 

that do not directly contract with 

procuring agencies may be affected 

positively by the increased demand for 

these biobased materials and products. 

However, other businesses that 

manufacture and supply only nonqualifying products and do not offer a 

biobased alternative product may 

experience a decrease in demand for 

their products. Thus, today’s proposed 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47585 

rule will likely increase the demand for 

biobased products, while decreasing the 

demand for non-qualifying products. It 

is anticipated that this will create a 

largely ‘‘offsetting’’ economic impact. 

USDA is unable to determine the 

number of businesses, including small 

businesses, that may be adversely 

affected by today’s proposed rule. If a 

business currently supplies any of the 

items proposed for designation to a 

procuring agency and those products do 

not qualify as biobased products, the 

proposed rule may reduce that 

company’s ability to compete for future 

contracts. However, the proposed rule 

will not affect existing purchase orders, 

nor will it preclude businesses from 

modifying their product lines to meet 

new specifications or solicitation 

requirements for these products 

containing biobased materials. Thus, 

many businesses, including small 

businesses, that market to Federal 

agencies and their contractors have the 

option of modifying their product lines 

to meet the new biobased specifications. 

2. Summary of Benefits 

The designation of these 10 items 

provides the benefits outlined in the 

objectives of section 9002: To increase 

domestic demand for biobased products 

and, thus, for the many agricultural 

commodities that can serve as 

feedstocks for production of biobased 

products; to spur development of the 

industrial base through value-added 

agricultural processing and 

manufacturing in rural communities; 

and to enhance the nation’s energy 

security by substituting biobased 

products for products derived from 

imported oil and natural gas. The 

increased demand for biobased products 

will also lead to the substitution of 

products with a possibly more benign or 

beneficial environmental impact, as 

compared to the use of non-biobased 

products. By purchasing these biobased 

products, procuring agencies can 

increase opportunities for all of these 

benefits. On a national and regional 

level, today’s proposed rule can result 

in expanding and strengthening markets 

for biobased materials used in these 10 

items. However, because the extent to 

which procuring agencies will find the 

performance and costs of biobased 

products acceptable is unknown, it is 

impossible to quantify the actual 

economic effect of today’s proposed 

rule. USDA, however, anticipates the 

annual economic effect of the 

designation of these 10 items to be 

substantially below the $100 million 

threshold. In addition, today’s proposed 

rule does not do any of the following: 

Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or 

policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in Executive 

Order 12866. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–602, generally 

requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

USDA evaluated the potential impacts 

of its proposed designation of these 10 

items to determine whether its actions 

would have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Because the Federal Biobased Products 

Preferred Procurement Program in 

section 9002 of FSRIA applies only to 

Federal agencies and their contractors, 

small governmental (city, county, etc.) 

agencies are not affected. Thus, the 

proposal, if promulgated, will not have 

a significant economic impact on small 

governmental jurisdictions. USDA 

anticipates that this program will affect 

entities, both large and small, that 

manufacture or sell biobased products. 

For example, the designation of items 

for preferred procurement will provide 

additional opportunities for businesses 

to manufacture and sell biobased 

products to Federal agencies and their 

contractors. Similar opportunities will 

be provided for entities that supply 

biobased materials to manufacturers. 

Conversely, the biobased procurement 

program may decrease opportunities for 

businesses that manufacture or sell nonbiobased products or provide 

components for the manufacturing of 

such products. However, the proposed 

rule will not affect existing purchase 

orders and it will not preclude 

procuring agencies from continuing to 

purchase non-biobased items under 

certain conditions relating to the 

availability, performance, or cost of 

biobased items. Today’s proposed rule 

will also not preclude businesses from 

modifying their product lines to meet 

new specifications or solicitation 

requirements for these products 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47586 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 §§ 2902.16 through 2902.25 to 

subpart B to read as follows: 

Subpart B—Designated Items 

* * * * * 

Sec. 

2902.16 Adhesive and Mastic Removers. 

2902.17 Insulating Foam for Wall 

Construction. 

2902.18 Hand Cleaners and Sanitizers. 

2902.19 Composite Panels. 

2902.20 Fluid-filled Transformers. 

2902.21 Biodegradable Containers. 

2902.22 Fertilizers. 

2902.23 Metalworking Fluids. 

2902.24 Sorbents. 

2902.25 Graffiti and Grease Removers. 

Subpart B—Designated Items 

* * * * * 

§ 2902.16 Adhesive and Mastic Removers. 

(a) Definition. Industrial cleaning 

solvent products formulated for use in 

removing asbestos, carpet, and ceramic 

tile mastics as well as adhesive 

materials, including glue, tape, and 

gum, from various surface types. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 58 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased adhesive and mastic 

removers. By that date, Federal agencies 

that have the responsibility for drafting 

or reviewing specifications for items to 

be procured shall ensure that the 

relevant specifications require the use of 

biobased adhesive and mastic removers. 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.17 Insulating Foam for Wall 

Construction. 

(a) Definition. Products designed to 

provide a sealed thermal barrier for 

residential or commercial construction 

applications. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 8 percent 

and shall be based on the amount of 

qualifying biobased carbon in the 

product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased insulating foam for 

wall construction. By that date, Federal 

agencies that have the responsibility for 

drafting or reviewing specifications for 

items to be procured shall ensure that 

the relevant specifications require the 

use of biobased insulating foam for wall 

construction. 

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

Qualifying biobased products that fall 

under this item may, in some cases, 

overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: Building 

Insulation. USDA is requesting that 

manufacturers of these qualifying 

biobased products provide information 

on the USDA Web site of qualifying 

biobased products about the intended 

uses of the product, information on 

whether or not the product contains any 

recovered material, in addition to 

biobased ingredients, and performance 

standards against which the product has 

been tested. This information will assist 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether or not a qualifying biobased 

product overlaps with EPA-designated 

building insulation and which product 

should be afforded the preference in 

purchasing. 

(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 47587 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.18 Hand Cleaners and Sanitizers. 

(a) Definition. Personal care products 

formulated for use in removing a variety 

of different soils, greases, and bacteria 

from human hands with or without the 

use of water. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 18 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased hand cleaners and 

sanitizers. By that date, Federal agencies 

that have the responsibility for drafting 

or reviewing specifications for items to 

be procured shall ensure that the 

relevant specifications require the use of 

biobased hand cleaners and sanitizers. 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.19 Composite Panels. 

(a) Definition. Engineered products 

designed for use in non-structural 

construction applications, including 

wall panels, shelving, decorative panels, 

lavatory dividers, and exterior signs. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 26 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased composite panels. 

By that date, Federal agencies that have 

the responsibility for drafting or 

reviewing specifications for items to be 

procured shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased composite panels. 

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

Qualifying biobased products that fall 

under this item may, in some cases, 

overlap with the following EPAdesignated recovered content products: 

Laminated Paperboard and Structural 

Foam Board; Shower and Restroom 

Dividers; and Signage. USDA is 

requesting that manufacturers of these 

qualifying biobased products provide 

information on the USDA Web site of 

qualifying biobased products about the 

intended uses of the product, 

information on whether or not the 

product contains any recovered 

material, in addition to biobased 

ingredients, and performance standards 

against which the product has been 

tested. This information will assist 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether or not a qualifying biobased 

product overlaps with EPA-designated 

laminated paperboard, structural foam 

board, shower and restroom dividers, 

and signage, and which product should 

be afforded the preference in 

purchasing. 

(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.20 Fluid-filled Transformers. 

(a) Definition. Electric power 

transformers that are designed to utilize 

a dielectric (non-conducting) fluid to 

provide insulating and cooling 

properties. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 66 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the dielectric fluid within the fluidfilled transformer as a percent of the 

weight (mass) of the total organic carbon 

in the fluid. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased fluid-filled 

transformers. By that date, Federal 

agencies that have the responsibility for 

drafting or reviewing specifications for 

items to be procured shall ensure that 

the relevant specifications require the 

use of biobased fluid-filled transformers. 

(d) Exemptions. The following 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item: 

(1) Military equipment: Product or 

system designed or procured for combat 

or combat-related missions. 

(2) Spacecraft systems and launch 

support equipment. 

§ 2902.21 Biodegradable Containers. 

(a) Definition. Products capable of 

complying with the specifications 

established in the biodegradability 

standard ASTM D6400 ‘‘Standard 

Specifications for Compostable Plastics’’

and designed to be used for temporary 

storage or transportation of materials 

such as food items. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 96 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased biodegradable 

containers. By that date, Federal 

agencies that have the responsibility for 

drafting or reviewing specifications for 

items to be procured shall ensure that 

the relevant specifications require the 

use of biobased biodegradable 

containers. 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.22 Fertilizers. 

(a) Definition. Products formulated or 

processed to provide nutrients for plant 

growth and/or beneficial bacteria to 

convert nutrients into plant usable 

forms. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 71 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased fertilizers. By that 

date, Federal agencies that have the 

responsibility for drafting or reviewing 

specifications for items to be procured 

shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased fertilizers. 

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

Qualifying biobased products that fall 

under this item may, in some cases, 

overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: Fertilizers 

Made From Recovered Organic 

Materials. USDA is requesting that 

manufacturers of these qualifying 

biobased products provide information 

on the USDA Web site of qualifying 

biobased products about the intended 

uses of the product, information on 

whether or not the product contains any 

recovered material, in addition to 

biobased ingredients, and performance 

standards against which the product has 

been tested. This information will assist 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
47588 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether or not a qualifying biobased 

product overlaps with EPA-designated 

fertilizers and which product should be 

afforded the preference in purchasing. 

(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.23 Metalworking Fluids. 

(a) Definition. Products formulated for 

use in a re-circulating fluid system to 

provide cooling, lubrication, and 

corrosion prevention when applied to 

metal feedstock during operations such 

as grinding and machining. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 40 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the undiluted product as a percent of 

the weight (mass) of the total organic 

carbon in the finished product. If the 

finished product is to be diluted before 

use, the biobased content of the fluid 

must be determined before dilution. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased metalworking 

fluids. By that date, Federal agencies 

that have the responsibility for drafting 

or reviewing specifications for items to 

be procured shall ensure that the 

relevant specifications require the use of 

biobased metalworking fluids. 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.24 Sorbents. 

(a) Definition. Materials formulated 

for use in the clean up and 

bioremediation of oil and chemical 

spills, the disposal of liquid materials, 

or the prevention of leakage or leaching 

in maintenance applications, shop 

floors, and fuel storage areas. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 52 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying biobased sorbents. By that 

date, Federal agencies that have the 

responsibility for drafting or reviewing 

specifications for items to be procured 

shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased sorbents. 

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

Qualifying biobased products that fall 

under this item may, in some cases, 

overlap with the EPA-designated 

recovered content product: Sorbents. 

USDA is requesting that manufacturers 

of these qualifying biobased products 

provide information on the USDA Web 

site of qualifying biobased products 

about the intended uses of the product, 

information on whether or not the 

product contains any recovered 

material, in addition to biobased 

ingredients, and performance standards 

against which the product has been 

tested. This information will assist 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether or not a qualifying biobased 

product overlaps with EPA-designated 

sorbents and which product should be 

afforded the preference in purchasing. 

(e) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

§ 2902.25 Graffiti and Grease Removers. 

(a) Definition. Industrial solvent 

products formulated to remove 

automotive, industrial, or kitchen soils 

and oils, including grease, paint, and 

other coatings, from hard surfaces. 

(b) Minimum biobased content. The 

minimum biobased content is 21 

percent and shall be based on the 

amount of qualifying biobased carbon in 

the product as a percent of the weight 

(mass) of the total organic carbon in the 

finished product. If the finished product 

is to be diluted before use, the biobased 

content of the remover must be 

determined before dilution. 

(c) Preference effective date. No later 

than [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule], procuring 

agencies, in accordance with this part, 

will give a procurement preference for 

qualifying graffiti and grease removers. 

By that date, Federal agencies that have 

the responsibility for drafting or 

reviewing specifications for items to be 

procured shall ensure that the relevant 

specifications require the use of 

biobased graffiti and grease removers. 

(d) Exemptions. Spacecraft systems 

and launch support equipment 

applications are exempt from the 

preferred procurement requirement for 

this item. 

Dated: August 10, 2006. 

Keith Collins, 

Chief Economist, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 06–6922 Filed 8–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–GL–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS