1 **Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review Under**  **t he Paperwork Reduction Act**  **1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION**  **1(a) Title**  **and Number of the Information Collection**  **Title: Assessment of Environmental**  **Performance Standards and Ecolab els**  **for F ederal Procurement**  **EPA ICR No.: 2516.01**  **OMB Control No.: 2070 -**  **NEW 1(b)**  **Short Characterization/Abstract** On November 27, 2013, EPA issued for public comment Draft Guidelines for Product Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Voluntary Use in Federal Procurement ; see Attachments 5 and 6
. As stated in the Federal Register notice ( 7 8 FR 70938; see Attachment 3 ), EPA’s goal in developing these Guidelines is to create a “transparent, fair, and consistent approach to selecting product environmental performance standards and ecolabels to support the Agency ’s mission and federal sustainable acquisition mandates.” The fundamental aim of the Guidelines is to establish a cross
- sector framework to be used in recognizing non
- governmental environmental standards (and consequently , environmentally preferable products meeting these standards) for use in federal procurement
. The draft Guidelines include four sections: 1
. Guidelines for the Process for Developing Standards refers to the procedures used to develop, maintain, and update an environmental standard. 2
. Guidelines for the Environmental Effectiveness of the Standards refers to the criteria in the environmental s tandard or ecolabel that support the claim of environmental preferability
. 3
. Guidelines for Conformity Assessment refers to the procedures and practices by which products are assessed for conformity to the requirements specified by standards and ecolabe ling programs. 4
. Guidelines for Management of Ecolabeling Programs refers to the organizational and management practices of an ecolabeling program. EPA has responded to public comments and released a new version of the Guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/draftGuidelines/responses.html
. The majority of public comments supported EPA undertaking
-- with key external entity

and stakeholder participation
-- additional work to further refine the Guidelines and test a potential approach to assessing standards and ecolabels. Therefore, in this next phase of work, EPA is contracting with an entity to convene a2

coordinating Governance Committee, product category
- specific multi
- stakeholder panels, and an independent assessment entity(ies) to develop and pilot test an approach in three to four sectors . EPA has chosen the following three purch ase categories to pilot in 2015: furniture, building flooring, and building paints/coatings/removers. An additional to - be
- determined product category may be addressed depending upon available resources and other considerations. These sectors were chosen because they meet some or all of the following criteria:

 Potentially

significant environmental and/or human health impact (based on lifecycle assessments and hazard and risk assessments)  Opportunity

for environmental and/or human health improvement through private sector standards/ecolabels;  Significant volume of federal purchases; and  Current federal sustainable acqui sition mandates in the category are limited, out
- of

- date, and/or could be augmented with private sector standards. **2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION**  **2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection**  EPA is engaging in this collection pursuant to the authority in the Pollution Prevention Act ( 42 U.S.C.A. section 13103(b)(11) ; see Attachment 1 ) which requires EPA to “I dentify opportunities to use Federal procurement to encourage source reduction” and s ection 12(d) of the “National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995” (Pub. L. 104
- 113; hereinafter “the NTTAA ; ” see Attachment 2 ) , which requires Federal agencies to “use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy

objectives or activities.” Federal agencies need this assessment per the Guidelines to determine which, among sometimes dozens of private sector standards within a single purchase category , are appropriate and effective in meeting federal procurement goals and mandates. F ederal agencies must comply with the following sustainability- rel ated purchasing mandates: s ection 2(h) of Executive Order 13514 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance), section 60 02 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, The Energy Policy Act, section 2(d) of Executive Order 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy , and Transportation Management) (72 FR 3919, January 26, 2007), and the FAR, including FAR Part 23 (Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency , Renewable Energy Technologies, Occupational Safety , and Drug
- Free Workplace) (see h ttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/procurement_index_green).3

Section 2(h) of Executive Order 13514 states that: “ The Head of each Agency shall . . . advance sustainable acquisition to ensure that 95 percent of new contract actions including task and delivery orders, for products and services with the exception of acquisition of weapon systems, are . . . energy- efficient (Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) designated), water
- efficient, biobased, environmentally preferable (e.g., Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) certified), non - ozone depleting, contain recycled content, or are non - toxic or less toxic alternatives, where such products and services meet agency performance requirements. ” V ia the NT TAA , Congress required Federal agencies to “use technical standards that are dev eloped or adopted b y voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry

out policy

objectives or activities,” except when an agency determines that such use “is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical .” Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A
- 119 (titled “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary

Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities”) reaffirms Federal agency use of non
- governmental standards in procurement. While Federal purchasing policy is clear for the several standards and ecolabels that are listed in statute, regulation, or Executive Order, the lack of independentl y assessed information about and federal guidance on using other product environmental performance standards and ecolabels often results in an inconsistent approach by Federal purchasers and confusion and uncertainty for vendors and manufacturers. **2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data**  As envisioned by

EPA and supporte d by

public comment , it would not be practical for individual procurement officers or even individual federal agencies to assess and make determinations regarding which standards and ecolabels are appropriate and effective in meeting federal procurement go als and mandates. Therefore, EPA is proposing to test an approach that could serve government
- wide interest in assessing and selecting standards and ecolabels to support the aforementioned environmentall y preferable purchasing goals and mandates in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner based on agreed upon guidelines and independent assessment. The guidelines to be used for assessing standards and ecolabels include criteria for both the process b y which standards and ecolabels are developed and managed and the effectiveness of the standards and ecolabels in protecting environmental and human health. Some of this information can be collected by reading the standard; other aspects need to be collected via assessment tools and/or interviews.4

**3. NON**  **- DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION**  **CRITERIA 3(a)**  **Non -**  **duplication** There has been no other effort to s ys tematicall y collect such comprehensive information about standards and ecolabels
. Additionally , where public sources of data are available, they will be consulted in lieu of asking respondents to do so. **3(b) Public Notice Requi**  **red Prior to ICR submission to OMB** In proposing to renew this I CR, EPA provided a 60
- day public notice and comment period that ended on May 18 , 2015 ( 80 FR 14372 , March 1 9, 2015). EPA received comments from nine respondents during the comment period. The respondents were: Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association (BIFMA); Fores Stewardship Council US; Forest Stewardship Council; NSF International; Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Inc.; SCS Global Services; TUV Rheinland; ULLLC; an d World Wildlife Fund. Copies of the comments that EPA received are found in Docket ID Number EPA
- HQ
- OPPT
- 2014
- 0838. A copy of EPA’s response to the comments is included as Attachment 7
. **3(c) Consultations**  In 2011 and 2012, EPA and the General Services Administration (GSA) convened several listening sessions to solicit input regarding the Federal Government's role in sustainability . A number of sessions were held following the release of the National Academy of Sciences report “Sustainability an d the U.S. EPA.” Other sessions were held under the auspices of the Interagency

Workgroup established by GSA per section 13 of Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy , and Economic Performance (74 FR 52117, October 8, 2009). EPA heard some common themes from suppliers, manufacturers, environmental organizations, multi
- stakeholder bodies, regulatory partners, standards development organizations, ecolabel programs, and others. Key points included: (1) The desire for greater clarity in the marketplace regarding standards and ecolabels and (2) the opportunity to leverage the Federal Government's purchasing power toward sustainability goals. The Interagency

Workgroup developed an initial set of draft Guidelines and contracted with Big Room Inc. (developers of www.EcoLabelIndex.com ) to test the feasibility and appropriateness of the draft Guidelines. Big Room Inc. conducted a survey of a subset of government and non
- governmental (less than nine ) environmental performance standards and ecolabel developers. Based on the results of the study and external stakeholder input, EPA revised the draft Guidelines and released them for public comment in November 2013
.5

Additionally , under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an ICR to OMB for review and approval. In accordance with this regulation, EPA submitted questions to nine parties via e
- mail. The individuals contacted were: Mar k Rossolo, ULmark.rossolo@ul.com Jessica Evans, NSF jevans@nsf.org Mark Petruzzi, Green Seal mpetruzzi@greenseal.org Brad Miller, BIFMA bmiller@bifma.org Dean Thompson, Resilient Floor Coverings dean.thompson@rfci.com B ridgett Luther, Cradle to Cradle bridgett@c2certified.org Robert Frisbee, Green Electronics Council rfrisbee@greenelectronicscouncil.org Steve Mawn, ASTM smawn@astm.org Anne Calas, ANSI acaldas@ansi.org EPA received one response to its solicitation for consultations
. Copies of EPA’s consultation e
- mail to the above potential respondents, and of the response that EPA received, are included in Attachment 8
. **3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection**  This pilot effort will inform the frequency of info rmation collection appropriate for Federal p rocurement needs
. Itis likely that the frequency

of information collection will be dependent upon 1) future business models for collection (e.g., if there is a greater reliance on the private sector’s conformity assessment infrastructure versus federal sponsorship/funding of assessments), 2) the speed of market transformation toward sustainability in particular sectors, and 3) changes in standards and ecolabel trends in particular sectors. **3(e) General Guidelines**  The in formation collection activities discussed in this I CR comply with all regulatory guidelines under 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). **3(f) Confidentiality**  It is not expected that any information collected in this I CR will involve confidential business or trade secret information. **3(g) Sensitive Questions**  The information collection activities discussed in this document do not involve any sensitive questions.6

**4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED**  **4(a) Respondents/**  **SI C Codes**  Respondents will be standards development organizations, ecolabel programs, and certification entities that have product environmental performance standards and/or ecolabels that (1) cover one or more of the three (3 ) identified product categories; and (2) could be considered for use in United States federal procurement per Executive Order (E.O.) 13514, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 23.103, and U.S. government standards policy , as a part of the pilot project
. EPA has chosen the following three ( 3 ) purchase categories to pilot in 2015

– furniture, building flooring, and building paints/coatings/removers. An additional to
- be
- determined sector may be piloted, depending upon available resources and other considerations. SI C c odes : Furniture, for example: 251 Household Furniture 252 Office Furniture 253 Public Building and Related Furniture Flooring, for example: 227 Carpets and Rugs 1752 Floor Laying and Other Floor Work, Not Elsewhere Classified 2426 Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills 3996 Linoleum, Asphalted
- Felt
- Base, and other Hard Surface Floor Coverings, not elsewhere classified 3253 Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile Paints, Coatings, and Removers, for example: 2851 Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels, and Allied Products These sectors were chosen because they meet some or all of the following criteria:
o Potentially

significant environmental and/or human health impact (based on lifecycle assessments and hazard and risk assessments) o Opportunity

for environmental and/or human health improvement through private sector standards/ecolabels; o Significant volume of federal purchases; and o Current federal sustainable acquisition mandates in the category are limited, out
of
- date, and/or could be augmented with private sector standards.7

**4(b) Informa**  **tion Requested** Respondents will:

 Self
- assess per product
- category specific checklists based on EPA’s draft Guidelines for Product Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels, and  Participate in a follow
- up interview(s) with an Independent Assessment Entity
. **5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED** 
**– AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION**  **METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT** This section provides information on the Agency activities that correspond with each piece of information collected, data management , small business burden, and collection schedules. **5(a) Agency Activities**  EPA will be contracting with an entity (or entities) to convene the multi
- stakeholder panels charged with developing the checklists by which standards and ecolabels will be independentl y assessed. EPA subject matter experts will participate in the multi
- stakeholder panels (one per panel) , which will follow consensus decision
- making approaches. **5(b) Collection Methodology and Management**  An independent assessment entity(ie s) will be brought in by EPA’s contractor to manage the information collection per internationall y recognized conformity assessment protocols ( e.g., ISO, ANSI). **5(c) Small Entity Flexibility**  It is expected that some of the participants in the pilot ef fort will be small standards development and ecolabel program entities. The pilot shall be designed to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information. In addition, given the voluntary nature of the collection, it is expected that respondents will participate only if the benefits of participation (greater access to the federal marketplace) outweigh the information collection burden.**5(d) Collection Schedule**  Collection of information for the pilot program is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2015. The need for and timing of future collection of information will be determined, in consultation with other federal agencies and the public, following the pilot.8

**6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION**  **6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden**  **and Cost** Table 1 presents the estimated respondent burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities under this I CR. EPA base d its burden estimates on a survey of a subset of government and non
- governmental (less than 9) environmental performance standards and ecolabel developers. The survey respondents were contacted for an interview following the survey and were asked how long it had taken them to complete the survey. Two respondents took as little as 30 minutes to complete the survey , s even respondents took 2
- 6 hours, two respondents to ok 16 hours, and one respondent (who covered three different ecolabels in its responses) took 50
- 60 hours. The average time spent per ecolabel on completing the survey was 8.5 hours. The average burden is estimated to be 8.5 hours per response . This estimate is based on the length of time needed to complete an assessment. Only standard development organizations and ecolabels who volunteer for assessment will be included in the pilot program. For each of the four product categories, EPA expects 5 respondents to volunte er to complete the assessment. Each respondent is expected to provide up to 2 responses. For the four product categories, there is an estimated total burden of 340 hours. In order to estimate total respondent cost associated with this I CR, wages for manag erial and professional/technical labor were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, for December 2013, for manufacturing industries. The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labor category , are taken from the same ECEC series. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages are calculated separatel y for each labor category. For example, for December 2013, the average wage rate for professional/technical labor was $39.7 0, the average fringe benefit was $21.14. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages were $21.14/$39.70, or approximately 53.3 percent. An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to wages to account for overhead
. This approach is used for consisten cy with Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic anal ys es for two major rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (2002), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final R eport (2002). This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage. For example, the December 2013 fully loaded wage for professional/technical labor is $39.70 × (1+0.532494 + 0.17) = $67.59. The average cost per response is $617.78. This cost is calculated b y dividing the average burden of 8.5 hours per response b y 4.25 hours of managerial labor and 4.25 hours of professional/technical labor.9

**Table 1**  **. Estimated Burden and Cost to Respondents**
**Product Categories**  **Number of**

**Respondents Response** 

**per respondent**  **Total Burden and Wage Rate by Labor Category**  **Total Burden**  **( Hour**  **s )**  **Total Cost**

**($) 1**  **Managerial Technical**  **Hours Wage**  **($) Hours**  **Wage ($)** Furniture 5 2 4.25 $77.77 4.25 $67.59 85 $ 6,177.80 Building Flooring 5 2 4.25 $77.77 4.25 $67.59 85 $ 6,177.80 Building Paints/ Coatings/Removers 5 2 4.25 $77.77 4.25 $67.59 85 $ 6,177.80 O ther Category 5 2 4.25 $77.77 4.25 $67.59 85 $ 6,177.80 **Total 20**  **-- --**  **-- --**  **-- 340**  **$ 24,711.20**  1 Total Cost is calculated by multiplying burden hours by the wage rate for each labor category and summing across labor categories, and then multiplying by total number of responses. **6(b )**  **Estimating Agency Burden and Cost**  T able 2 presents the estimated Agency burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities under this I CR. EPA based its burden estimates on previous Agency efforts in convening multi
- stakeholder groups and developing environmentally preferable purchasing guidance. In addition, EPA’s contractor statement of work for this effort has been negotiated and awarded at this level of effort. Agency wage rate data used to calculate labor costs were gathered from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2013
- DCB, for a GS
- 1 4 , step 5 , employee in the Washington, D.C. area. A loading factor of 1.6 was applied to the base rate to arrive at the 2013 loaded salary of $ 190,781 p er year. The hourly wage rate was computed by dividing the loaded wage b y 2,080 hours, the hours associated with a full time employee. This loaded hourl y wage rate of $ 91.72 was used in calculations of Agency cost.10

**T able**  **2 .**  **Estimated Burden and Cost to Agency**

**Collection Activity EPA Burden**  **( Hours**  **) EPA Costs**  **($)** Develop sector specific assessment tools/checklists based on draft guidelines 3,000 $ 275,160 Issue assessment tool/checklist to applicant SDOs and ecolabel programs (respondents) 50 $ 4,586 Follow up with respondent s via phone interviews 250 $ 22,930 Prepare analysis and report of the assessment results 400 $ 36,688 Determine if/how

to recognize conforming standards and ecolabels 300 $ 27,516 **Total 4,000**  **$ 366,880**  **6(c )**  **Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables** a. Respondent Tally Table 3 summarizes the total annual estimated respondent burden and cost. These estimates represent the average burden in any given year over the three years covered by this ICR. However, the assessm ent tool and its respective results are onl y expected to be conducted once over the three
- ye ar period. **Table 3**  **. Total Annual Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary Total**  **Number of Respondents**  **Average Burden Hours Annual Cost** 

20 340 $ 24,711.20 b. Agency

Tall y Table 4 summarizes the total annual estimated Agency burden and cost (including contractor cost). These estimates represent the average burden in any given year over the three ye ars covered b y this I CR. However, the assessment tool and its respective results are onl y expected to be conducted once over the three
- ye ar period. **Table 4**  **. Total Annual Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Summary** 

**Burden Hours Annual Cost**  4,000 $ 366,880 **6(d )**  **Reasons for Change in Burden** Since this is a new I CR, change in burden is not applicable.11

**6(e )**  **Burden Statement** The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 8.5 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)
. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it display s a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection appears above. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The Agency

has established a public docket for this I CR under Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ
OPPT
- 201 4
- 0838 , which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in
- person viewing at the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC)
. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC
. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s . The telephone number for the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566
- 1744, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is (202) 566
- 0280. You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques. Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ
- OPPT
- 201 4
- 0838 and OMB Control No. 2070
- NEW , to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or b y mail to: Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail C ode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB b y mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 2050 3.12 **ATTACHMENT S**  **TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT** Attachment s to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this ICR under docket identification number EPA

–HQ

–OPPT
- 201 4
- 0838 . Th e attachment s are available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov or otherwise accessed as described in section 6( e ) of the supporting statement. **Attachment 1:** Pollution Prevention Act , 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq . **Attachment 2:** National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 , 15 U.S.C. **Attachment 3:** Federal Register Notice, November 27, 2013 , “ Draft Guidelines for

Product Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Voluntary

Use in Federal Procurement” (7 8 FR 70938 ) **Attachment 4:** Federal Register Notice, February 27, 2014, “ Draft Guidelines for Product Environmental Performance Standards and Ecolabels for Voluntary Use in Federal Procurement” (79 FR 11102) **Attachment 5**  **:** Draft Guidelines for Product Environmental Performance Standards and

Ecolabels for Voluntary

Use in Federal Procurement

– Revised Guidelines on the Environmental Effectiveness of the Standards (Section II) **Attachment 6**  **:** Draft Guidelines for Produc t Environmental Performance Standards and

Ecolabels for Voluntary

Use in Federal Procurement

– Section I(Process for Developing Standards, Section III (Conformity Assessment), and Section IV (Management of Ecolabeling Programs) **Attachment 7:** Copies of Public C omments and EPA’s Response to C omments **Attachment 8:** Copy of EPA’s C onsultation E - mail to Potential Respondents and Cop y of

Response that EPA Received