# 73 FR 63298: Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-25037

## Section

- **Citation:** 73 FR 63298
- **Heading:** Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 73 / 73 FR 63298

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Energy Policy and New Uses 7 CFR Part 2902 RIN 0503-AA33 Designation of Biobased Items for Federal Procurement AGENCY:
Departmental Administration, USDA.

ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing to amend the Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement, by adding nine sections to designate the following nine items within which biobased products would be afforded Federal procurement preference: Chain and cable lubricants; corrosion preventatives; food cleaners; forming lubricants; gear lubricants; general purpose household cleaners; industrial cleaners; multipurpose cleaners; and parts wash solutions. USDA also is proposing minimum biobased content for each of these items.

DATES:
USDA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until December 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments by any of the following methods. All submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory Information Number (RIN). The RIN for this rulemaking is 0503-AA33. Also, please identify submittals as pertaining to the “Proposed Designation of Items.”
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: biopreferred@usda.gov. Include RIN number 0503-AA33 and “Proposed Designation of Items” on the subject line. Please include your name and address in your message.
• Mail/commercial/hand delivery: Mail or deliver your comments to: Shana Love, USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, Room 209A, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0103.
• Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for regulatory information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice) and (202) 401-4133 (TDD)
nts to: Shana Love, USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, Room 209A, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0103.
• Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for regulatory information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice) and (202) 401-4133 (TDD).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shana Love, USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, Room 209A, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0103; e-mail: biopreferred@usda.gov ; phone (202) 205-4008. Information regarding the Federal Procurement of Biobased Products (one part of the BioPreferred Program) is available on the Internet at http://www.biopreferred.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Authority II. Background III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame A. Background B. Items Proposed for Designation C. Minimum Biobased Contents D. Compliance Date for Procurement Preference and Incorporation Into Specifications V. Where Can Agencies Get More Information on These USDA-Designated Items? VI. Regulatory Information A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 G. Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance I
titutionally Protected Property Rights D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 G. Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance I. Authority
The designation of these items is proposed under the authority of section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this document as “section 9002”).
II. Background
Section 9002, as amended by the FCEA of 2008, provides for the preferred procurement of biobased products by Federal procuring agencies (referred to hereafter in this FR notice as the “preferred procurement program”). The definition of “procuring agency” in section 9002, as amended by the FCEA of 2008, includes both Federal agencies and “a person that is a party to a contract with any Federal agency, with respect to work performed under such a contract.” Thus, Federal contractors, as well as Federal agencies, are expressly subject to the procurement preference provisions of section 9002.
Once USDA designates an item, procuring agencies are required generally to purchase biobased products within these designated items where the purchase price of the procurement item exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity of such items or the functionally equivalent items purchased over the preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or more. Procuring agencies must procure biobased products within each designated item unless they determine that products within a designated item are not reasonably available within a reasonable period of time, fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring agencies, or are available only at an unreasonable price
items purchased over the preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or more. Procuring agencies must procure biobased products within each designated item unless they determine that products within a designated item are not reasonably available within a reasonable period of time, fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring agencies, or are available only at an unreasonable price. As stated in the Guidelines, biobased products that are merely incidental to Federal funding are excluded from the preferred procurement program; that is, the requirements to purchase biobased products do not apply to such purchases if they are unrelated to or incidental to the purpose of the Federal contract. To illustrate, you are awarded a Federal contract to construct a Federal office building with elevators. The elevators require hydraulic fluid to operate. Because stationary equipment hydraulic fluids are an item that has been designated for preferred procurement, the hydraulic fluid purchased for use in the elevators would be subject to the requirements of section 9002. In order to install these elevators, cranes may be used. These cranes require hydraulic fluid to operate. The hydraulic fluid purchased for the maintenance of these cranes used in the performance of that contract, however, is considered to be incidental to the purpose of the Federal contract. Because it is incidental, it would not be subject to the requirements of section 9002, even though some of the monies received under the contract might be used to purchase the hydraulic fluid used in the cranes.
In implementing the preferred procurement program for biobased products, procuring agencies should follow their procurement rules and Office of Federal Procurement Policy guidance on buying non-biobased products when biobased products exist and should document exceptions taken for price, performance, and availability.
USDA recognizes that the performance needs for a given application are important criteria in making procurement decisions
rogram 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
Section 9002(a)(3)(B), as amended by the FCEA of 2008, requires USDA to provide information to procuring agencies on the availability, relative price, performance, and environmental and public health benefits of such items and to recommend where appropriate the minimum level of biobased content to be contained in the procured products.
It is the responsibility of the manufacturers to “self-certify” that each product being offered as a biobased product for preferred procurement contains qualifying feedstock. USDA will develop a monitoring process for these self-certifications to ensure manufacturers are using qualifying feedstocks. If misrepresentations are found, USDA will remove the subject biobased product from the preferred procurement program and may take further actions as deemed appropriate.
Subcategorization. Most of the items USDA is considering for designation for preferred procurement cover a wide range of products. For some items, there are groups of products within the item that meet different markets and uses and/or different performance specifications. For example, within the designated item “hand cleaners and sanitizers,” some products are required to meet performance specifications for sanitizing, while other products do not need to meet these specifications. Where such subgroups exist, USDA intends to create subcategories
e are groups of products within the item that meet different markets and uses and/or different performance specifications. For example, within the designated item “hand cleaners and sanitizers,” some products are required to meet performance specifications for sanitizing, while other products do not need to meet these specifications. Where such subgroups exist, USDA intends to create subcategories. For example, for the item “hand cleaners and sanitizers,” USDA has determined it is reasonable to create a “hand cleaner” subcategory and a “hand sanitizer” subcategory. Sanitizing specifications would be applicable to the latter subcategory, but not the former. In sum, USDA looks at the products within each item to evaluate whether there are groups of products within the item that meet different performance specifications and, where USDA finds this type of difference, it intends to create subcategories.
For some items, however, USDA may not have sufficient information at the time of proposal to create subcategories within an item. For example, USDA may know that there are different performance specifications that deicing products are required to meet, but it has only information on one type of deicing product. In such instances, USDA may either designate the item without creating subcategories (i.e., defer the creation of subcategories) or designate one subcategory and defer designation of other subcategories within the item until additional information is obtained.
Within today's proposed rule, USDA is not proposing subcategories for any of the nine items being proposed for designation, but is requesting specific comments on the appropriateness of creating subcategories within several items.
Minimum Biobased Contents. The minimum biobased contents being proposed with today's rule are based on products for which USDA has biobased content test data
tained.
Within today's proposed rule, USDA is not proposing subcategories for any of the nine items being proposed for designation, but is requesting specific comments on the appropriateness of creating subcategories within several items.
Minimum Biobased Contents. The minimum biobased contents being proposed with today's rule are based on products for which USDA has biobased content test data. In addition to considering the biobased content test data for each item, USDA also considers other factors including product performance information and the range, groupings, and breaks in the biobased content test data array. Consideration of this information allows USDA to establish minimum biobased contents on a broad set of factors to assist the Federal procurement community in its decisions to purchase biobased products.
USDA makes every effort to obtain biobased content test data on multiple products within each item. For most designated items, USDA has biobased content test data on more than one product within a designated item. However, USDA must rely on biobased product manufacturers to voluntarily submit product information and, in some cases, USDA has been able to obtain biobased content data for only a single product within a designated item. As USDA obtains additional data on the biobased contents for products within these designated items, USDA will evaluate whether the minimum biobased content for a designated item will be revised.
USDA anticipates that the minimum biobased content of an item that is based on a single product is more likely to change as additional products within that item are identified and tested. In today's proposed rule, none of the minimum biobased contents for the designated items are based on a single tested product
evaluate whether the minimum biobased content for a designated item will be revised.
USDA anticipates that the minimum biobased content of an item that is based on a single product is more likely to change as additional products within that item are identified and tested. In today's proposed rule, none of the minimum biobased contents for the designated items are based on a single tested product.
Where USDA receives additional information on biobased content for products within these proposed items during the public comment period, USDA will take that information into consideration when establishing the minimum biobased content when the items are designated in the final rulemaking.
Overlap with EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline program for recovered content products under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 6002. Some of the products that are biobased items designated for preferred procurement under the preferred procurement program may also be items the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated under the EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) for Products Containing Recovered Materials. Where that occurs, an EPA-designated recovered content product (also known as “recycled content products” or “EPA-designated products”) has priority in Federal procurement over the qualifying biobased product as identified in 7 CFR § 2902.2. In situations where it believes there may be an overlap, USDA is asking manufacturers of qualifying biobased products to provide additional product and performance information to Federal agencies to assist them in determining whether the biobased products in question are, or are not, the same products for the same uses as the recovered content products. As this information becomes available, USDA will place it on the BioPreferred Web site with its catalog of qualifying biobased products
alifying biobased products to provide additional product and performance information to Federal agencies to assist them in determining whether the biobased products in question are, or are not, the same products for the same uses as the recovered content products. As this information becomes available, USDA will place it on the BioPreferred Web site with its catalog of qualifying biobased products.
In cases where USDA believes an overlap with EPA-designated recovered content products may occur, manufacturers are being asked to indicate the various suggested uses of their product and the performance standards against which a particular product has been tested. In addition, depending on the type of biobased product, manufacturers are being asked to provide other types of information, such as whether the product contains fossil energy-based components (including petroleum, coal, and natural gas) and whether the product contains recovered materials. Federal agencies may also ask manufacturers for information on a product's biobased content and its profile against environmental and health measures and life-cycle costs (the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) analysis or ASTM Standard D7075,”Standard Practice for Evaluating and Reporting Environmental Performance of Biobased Products,” for evaluating and reporting on environmental performance of biobased products). Such information will permit agencies to determine whether or not an overlap occurs. Detailed information on the BEES analytical tool can be found on the Web site http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.html. Summary information on ASTM Standard D7075, and other ASTM standards, can be http://www.astm.org.
Section 6002 of RCRA requires a procuring agency procuring an item designated by EPA generally to procure such items composed of the highest percentage of recovered materials content practicable
o address a Federal agency's certain environmental or health performance requirements that the EPA-designated recovered content product would not meet, then the biobased product should be given preference, subject to cost, availability, and performance.
This proposed rule designates one item for preferred procurement for which there may be overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content product. This item is “gear lubricants,” which, depending on how they are used, may overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product “Re-refined Lubricating Oils.” EPA provides recovered materials content recommendations for this recovered content product in a Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN I). The RMAN recommendations for this CPG product can be found by accessing EPA's Web site http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure/products.htm and then clicking on the appropriate product name.
Federal Government Purchase of “Green” Products. Three components of the Federal government's green purchasing program are the Biobased Products Preferred Purchasing Program, the Environmental Protection Agency's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline for Products Containing Recovered Materials, and the Environmentally Preferable Products Program. The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) encourage agencies to implement these components comprehensively when purchasing products and services.
Procuring agencies should note that not all biobased products are “environmentally preferable.” For example, unless cleaning products contain no or reduced levels of metals and toxic and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life, the environment, and/or workers. Household cleaning products that are formulated to be disinfectants are required, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to be registered with EPA and must meet specific labeling requirements warning of the potential risks associated with misuse of such products
nd toxic and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life, the environment, and/or workers. Household cleaning products that are formulated to be disinfectants are required, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to be registered with EPA and must meet specific labeling requirements warning of the potential risks associated with misuse of such products. When purchasing environmentally preferable cleaning products, many Federal agencies specify that products must meet Green Seal standards 1 for institutional cleaning products or that products must have been reformulated in accordance with recommendations from the U.S. EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program. Both the Green Seal standards and the DfE program identify chemicals of concern in cleaning products. These include zinc and other metals, formaldehyde, ammonia, alkyl phenol ethoxylates, ethylene glycol ethers, and volatile organic compounds. In addition, both require that cleaning products have neutral or less caustic pH.
1 Reference to these standards does not represent or imply any endorsement by USDA.
On the other hand, some biobased products may be better for the environment than some products that meet Green Seal standards for institutional cleaning products or that have been reformulated in accordance with EPA's DfE program. To fully compare products, one must look at the “cradle-to-grave” impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of products. Biobased products that will be available for preferred procurement under this program have been assessed as to their “cradle-to-grave” impacts.
One consideration of a product's impact on the environment is whether (and to what degree) it introduces new, fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Qualifying biobased products offer the user the opportunity to manage the carbon cycle and limit the introduction of new, fossil carbon into the atmosphere, whereas non-biobased products derived from fossil fuels add new, fossil carbon to the atmosphere
One consideration of a product's impact on the environment is whether (and to what degree) it introduces new, fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Qualifying biobased products offer the user the opportunity to manage the carbon cycle and limit the introduction of new, fossil carbon into the atmosphere, whereas non-biobased products derived from fossil fuels add new, fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
Manufacturers of qualifying biobased products under the preferred procurement program will be able to provide, at the request of Federal agencies, factual information on environmental and human health effects of their products, including the results of the BEES analysis, which examines 11 different environmental parameters, including human health, or the comparable ASTM D7075. Therefore, USDA encourages Federal procurement agencies to examine all available information on the environmental and human health effects of products when making their purchasing decisions.
Other Preferred Procurement Programs. Federal procurement officials should also note that biobased products may be available for purchase by Federal agencies through the AbilityOne Program (formerly known as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) program). Under this program, members of organizations including the National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and the National Institute for the Severely Handicapped (NISH) offer products and services for preferred procurement by Federal agencies. A search of the AbilityOne Program's JWOD online catalog ( http://www.jwodcatalog.com ) indicated that three of the items being proposed today (“general purpose household cleaners”, “industrial cleaners”, and “multipurpose cleaners”) are available through the AbilityOne Program. While none of the specific products within these items are identified in the JWOD online catalog as being biobased products, there currently are biobased cleaning products available from at least one NIB affiliate
ated that three of the items being proposed today (“general purpose household cleaners”, “industrial cleaners”, and “multipurpose cleaners”) are available through the AbilityOne Program. While none of the specific products within these items are identified in the JWOD online catalog as being biobased products, there currently are biobased cleaning products available from at least one NIB affiliate. Also, because additional categories of products are frequently added to the AbilityOne Program, it is possible that biobased products within other items being proposed for designation today may be available through the AbilityOne Program in the future. Procurement of biobased products through the AbilityOne Program would further the objectives of both the AbilityOne Program and the preferred procurement program.
Interagency Council. USDA has created, and is chairing, an “interagency council” with membership selected from among Federal stakeholders to the preferred procurement program. To augment its own research, USDA consults with this council in identifying the order of item designation, manufacturers producing and marketing products that fall within an item proposed for designation, performance
Future Designations. In making future designations, USDA will continue to conduct market searches to identify manufacturers of biobased products within items. USDA will then contact the identified manufacturers to solicit samples of their products for voluntary submission for biobased content testing and for the BEES analytical tool. Based on these results, USDA will then propose new items for designation for preferred procurement.
As stated in the preamble to the first six items designated for preferred procurement (71 FR 13686, March 16, 2006), USDA plans to identify approximately 10 items in each future rulemaking. USDA has developed a preliminary list of items for future designation. This list is available on the BioPreferred Web site
results, USDA will then propose new items for designation for preferred procurement.
As stated in the preamble to the first six items designated for preferred procurement (71 FR 13686, March 16, 2006), USDA plans to identify approximately 10 items in each future rulemaking. USDA has developed a preliminary list of items for future designation. This list is available on the BioPreferred Web site. While this list presents an initial prioritization of items for designation, USDA cannot identify with certainty which items will be presented in each of the future rulemakings. Items may be added or dropped and the information necessary to designate an item may take more time to obtain than an item lower on the prioritization list.
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Rule
USDA is proposing to designate the following nine items for preferred procurement: Chain and cable lubricants; corrosion preventatives; food cleaners; forming lubricants; gear lubricants; general purpose household cleaners; industrial cleaners; multipurpose cleaners; and parts wash solutions. USDA is also proposing minimum biobased content for each of these items (see Section IV.C). Lastly, USDA is proposing a date by which Federal agencies must incorporate designated items into their procurement specifications (see Section IV.D).
In today's proposed rule, USDA is providing information on its findings as to the availability, economic and technical feasibility, environmental and public health benefits, and life-cycle costs for each of the designated items. Information on the availability, relative price, performance, and environmental and public health benefits of individual products within each of these items is not presented in this notice. Further, USDA has reached an agreement with manufacturers not to publish their names in the Federal Register when designating items. This agreement was reached to encourage manufacturers to submit products for testing to support the designation of an item
ce, performance, and environmental and public health benefits of individual products within each of these items is not presented in this notice. Further, USDA has reached an agreement with manufacturers not to publish their names in the Federal Register when designating items. This agreement was reached to encourage manufacturers to submit products for testing to support the designation of an item. Once an item has been designated, USDA will encourage the manufacturers of products within the designated item to voluntarily make their names and other contact information available for the BioPreferred Web site.
Warranties. Some of the items, including subcategories, being proposed for designation today may affect maintenance warranties. As time and resources allow, USDA will work with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) on addressing any effect the use of biobased products may have on their maintenance warranties. At this time, however, USDA does not have information available as to whether or not OEMs will state that the use of these products will void their maintenance warranties. This does not mean that use of biobased products will void warranties, only that USDA does not currently have such information. USDA encourages manufacturers of biobased products to test their products against all relevant standards, including those that affect warranties, and to work with OEMs to ensure that biobased products will not void maintenance warranties when used. Whenever manufacturers of biobased products find that existing performance standards for maintenance warranties are not relevant or appropriate for biobased products, USDA is willing to assist them in working with the appropriate OEMs to develop tests that are relevant and appropriate for the end uses in which biobased products are intended
products will not void maintenance warranties when used. Whenever manufacturers of biobased products find that existing performance standards for maintenance warranties are not relevant or appropriate for biobased products, USDA is willing to assist them in working with the appropriate OEMs to develop tests that are relevant and appropriate for the end uses in which biobased products are intended. If, in spite of these efforts, there is insufficient information regarding the use of a biobased product and its effect of maintenance warranties, USDA notes that the procurement agent would not be required to buy such a product. As information is available on warranties, USDA will make such information available on the BioPreferred Web site.
Additional Information. USDA is working with manufacturers and vendors to make all relevant product and manufacturer contact information available on the BioPreferred Web site before a procuring agency asks for it, in order to make the preferred program more efficient. Steps USDA has implemented, or will implement, include: Making direct contact with submitting companies through e-mail and phone conversations to encourage completion of product listing; coordinating outreach efforts with intermediate material producers to encourage participation of their customer base; conducting targeted outreach with industry and commodity groups to educate stakeholders on the importance of providing complete product information; participating in industry conferences and meetings to educate companies on program benefits and requirements; and communicating the potential for expanded markets beyond the Federal government, to include State and local governments, as well as the general public markets. Section V provides instructions to agencies on how to obtain this information on products within these items through the following Web site: http://www.biopreferred.gov.
Comments
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.biopreferred.gov.
Comments. USDA invites comment on the proposed designation of these items, including the definition, proposed minimum biobased content, and any of the relevant analyses performed during the selection of these items. In addition, USDA invites comments and information in the following areas:
1. One item, “gear lubricants,” may overlap with one of the products designated under EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline for Products Containing Recovered Material. To help procuring agencies in making their purchasing decisions between biobased products within the proposed designated items that overlap with products containing recovered material, USDA is requesting product specific information on unique performance attributes, environmental and human health effects, disposal costs, and other attributes that would distinguish biobased products from products containing recovered material as well as non-biobased products.
2. We have attempted to identify relevant and appropriate performance standards and other relevant measures of performance for each of the proposed items. If you know of other such standards or relevant measures of performance for any of the proposed items, USDA requests that you submit information identifying such standards and measures, including their name (and other identifying information as necessary), identifying who is using the standard/measure, and describing the circumstances under which the product is being used.
3. Many biobased products within the items being proposed for designation will have positive environmental and human health attributes
ests that you submit information identifying such standards and measures, including their name (and other identifying information as necessary), identifying who is using the standard/measure, and describing the circumstances under which the product is being used.
3. Many biobased products within the items being proposed for designation will have positive environmental and human health attributes. USDA is seeking comments on such attributes in order to provide additional information on the BioPreferred Web site. This information will then be available to Federal procuring agencies and will assist them in making “best value” purchase decisions. When possible, please provide appropriate documentation to support the
4. Several items (i.e., “corrosion preventatives,” “industrial cleaners,” and “multipurpose cleaners”) have wide ranges of tested biobased contents. For the reasons discussed later in this preamble, USDA is proposing minimum biobased content levels for these items that would allow a high percentage of the tested products to be eligible for preferred procurement. USDA welcomes comments on the appropriateness of the proposed minimum biobased contents for these items and whether there are potential subcategories within the items that should be considered.
5. USDA considered combining the proposed items “gear lubricants,” “chain and cable lubricants,” and “forming lubricants” into a single designated item with multiple subcategories. The decision to propose the items separately was based largely on the differences in functional performance between the items. While the basic purpose of products within each of these items is to provide lubrication, the applications and the conditions under which they perform are very different. USDA requests comments from procuring agencies and manufacturers of products within these items specifically addressing the advantages and disadvantages of these items being designated separately versus combined into a single item with subcategories
ose of products within each of these items is to provide lubrication, the applications and the conditions under which they perform are very different. USDA requests comments from procuring agencies and manufacturers of products within these items specifically addressing the advantages and disadvantages of these items being designated separately versus combined into a single item with subcategories.
All comments should be submitted as directed in the ADDRESSES section above.
To assist you in developing your comments, the background information used in proposing these items for designation has been assembled in a technical support document, “Technical Support for Proposed Rule—Round 5 Designated Items,” which is available on the BioPreferred Web site. The technical support document can be located by clicking on the Proposed and Final Regulations link on the left side of the BioPreferred Web site's home page ( http://www.biopreferred.gov ). At the BioPreferred Web site, click on the Proposed and Final Regulations link on the left side of the page. At the next screen, click on the Supporting Documentation link under Round 5 Designated Items under the Proposed Regulations section. This will bring you to the link to the technical support document.
IV. Designation of Items, Minimum Biobased Contents, and Time Frame
A. Background
In order to designate items (generic groupings of specific products such as crankcase oils or products that contain qualifying biobased fibers) for preferred procurement, section 9002 requires USDA to consider: (1) The availability of items and (2) the economic and technological feasibility of using the items, including the life-cycle costs of the items.
In considering an item's availability, USDA uses several sources of information
roupings of specific products such as crankcase oils or products that contain qualifying biobased fibers) for preferred procurement, section 9002 requires USDA to consider: (1) The availability of items and (2) the economic and technological feasibility of using the items, including the life-cycle costs of the items.
In considering an item's availability, USDA uses several sources of information. USDA performs Internet searches, contacts trade associations (such as the Bio organization) and commodity groups, searches the Thomas Register (a database, used as a resource for finding companies and products manufactured in North America, containing over 173,000 entries), and contacts individual manufacturers and vendors to identify those manufacturers and vendors with biobased products within items being considered for designation. USDA uses the results of these same searches to determine if an item is generally available.
In considering an item's economic and technological feasibility, USDA examines evidence pointing to the general commercial use of an item and its cost and performance characteristics. This information is obtained from the sources used to assess an item's availability. Commercial use, in turn, is evidenced by any manufacturer and vendor information on the availability, relative prices, and performance of their products as well as by evidence of an item being purchased by a procuring agency or other entity, where available. In sum, USDA considers an item economically and technologically feasible for purposes of designation if products within that item are being offered and used in the marketplace.
In considering the life-cycle costs of items proposed for designation, USDA uses the BEES analytical tool to test individual products within each proposed item. The BEES analytical tool measures the environmental performance and the economic performance of a product
nd technologically feasible for purposes of designation if products within that item are being offered and used in the marketplace.
In considering the life-cycle costs of items proposed for designation, USDA uses the BEES analytical tool to test individual products within each proposed item. The BEES analytical tool measures the environmental performance and the economic performance of a product.
Environmental performance is measured in the BEES analytical tool using the internationally-standardized and science-based, life-cycle assessment approach specified in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000 standards. The BEES environmental performance analysis, which includes human health as one of its components, is a “cradle-to-grave” assessment of a product. In it, all stages in the life of a product are analyzed: Raw material production; manufacture; transportation; installation; use; and recycling and waste management. The time period over which environmental performance is measured begins with raw material production and ends with disposal (waste management). The BEES environmental performance analysis also addresses products made from biobased feedstocks.
Economic performance in the BEES analysis is measured using the ASTM Standard E917, “Standard Practice for Measuring Life-Cycle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems,” which covers the costs of initial investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. The time frame for economic performance extends from the purchase of the product to final disposal. USDA then utilizes the BEES results of individual products within a designated item in its consideration of the life-cycle costs at the item level
cle Costs of Buildings and Building Systems,” which covers the costs of initial investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. The time frame for economic performance extends from the purchase of the product to final disposal. USDA then utilizes the BEES results of individual products within a designated item in its consideration of the life-cycle costs at the item level.
The environmental performance results are reported as both an impact value and as an environmental performance score for 12 different environmental impact areas:
• Acidification,
• Criteria pollutants,
• Ecological toxicity,
• Eutrophication,
• Fossil fuel depletion,
• Global warming,
• Habitat alteration,
• Human health,
• Indoor air quality,
• Ozone depletion,
• Smog, and
• Water intake.
For each environmental impact area, BEES estimates the impact a product has in an area using certain units to standardize impacts. For example, acidification is measured as “millimoles of hydrogen equivalents,” while eutrophication is measured as “grams of nitrogen equivalents.” Thus, for acidification, BEES estimates how many millimoles of hydrogen equivalents and how many grams of nitrogen equivalents a product generates as the result of its production and use. These values are referred to as “impact values” and are calculated on a per functional unit basis. For example, the impact value for eutrophication for a chain and cable lubricant product was estimated to be 105 grams of nitrogen equivalents for one gallon of product (the functional unit).
The impact values for a product are then used to determine the environmental performance scores of a product within each of the 12 environmental impact areas. The
For both the impact values and the environmental performance scores, the BEES analysis uses a single unit of comparison associated with each designated item
ams of nitrogen equivalents for one gallon of product (the functional unit).
The impact values for a product are then used to determine the environmental performance scores of a product within each of the 12 environmental impact areas. The
For both the impact values and the environmental performance scores, the BEES analysis uses a single unit of comparison associated with each designated item. The basis for the unit of comparison is the “functional unit,” defined so that the products compared within an item are true substitutes for one another. If significant differences have been identified in the useful lives of alternative products within a designated item (e.g., if one product lasts twice as long as another), the functional unit includes reference to a time dimension to account for the frequency of product replacement. The functional unit also accounts for products used in different amounts for equivalent service. For example, one surface coating product may be environmentally and economically preferable to another on a pound-for-pound basis, but may require twice the mass to cover one square foot of surface, and last half as long, as the other product. To account for these performance differences, the functional unit for the surface coating item could be “one square foot of application for 20 years” instead of “one pound of surface coating product.” The functional unit provides the critical reference point to which all BEES results for products within an item are scaled. Because functional units vary from item to item, performance comparisons are valid only among products within a designated item.
The complete results of the BEES analysis, extrapolated to the item level, for each item proposed for designation in today's proposed rule can be found in the technical support document for this proposed rule.
As discussed above, the BEES analysis includes information on the environmental performance, human health impacts, and economic performance
only among products within a designated item.
The complete results of the BEES analysis, extrapolated to the item level, for each item proposed for designation in today's proposed rule can be found in the technical support document for this proposed rule.
As discussed above, the BEES analysis includes information on the environmental performance, human health impacts, and economic performance. In addition, ASTM Standard D7075, which manufacturers may use in lieu of the BEES analytical tool, provides similar information. USDA is working with manufacturers and vendors to make this information available on the BioPreferred Web site in order to make the preferred procurement program more efficient.
As discussed earlier, USDA has also implemented, or will implement, several other steps intended to educate the manufacturers and other stakeholders on the benefits of this program and the need to make this information, including manufacturer contact information, available on the BioPreferred Web site in order to then make it available to procurement officials. Additional information on specific products within the items proposed for designation may also be obtained directly from the manufacturers of the products. USDA has also provided a link on the BioPreferred Web site to the Defense Standardization Program and to General Services Administration (GSA)-related standards lists used as guidance when procuring products. These lists can be accessed through the “Selling to the Federal Government” link on the BioPreferred Web site.
USDA recognizes that information related to the functional performance of biobased products is a primary factor in making the decision to purchase these products. USDA is gathering information on industry standard test methods and performance standards that manufacturers are using to evaluate the functional performance of their products. (Test methods are procedures used to provide information on a certain attribute of a product
related to the functional performance of biobased products is a primary factor in making the decision to purchase these products. USDA is gathering information on industry standard test methods and performance standards that manufacturers are using to evaluate the functional performance of their products. (Test methods are procedures used to provide information on a certain attribute of a product. For example, a test method might determine how many bacteria are killed. Performance standards identify the level at which a product must perform in order for it to be “acceptable” to the entity that set the performance standard. For example, a performance standard might require that a certain percentage (e.g., 95 percent) of the bacteria must be killed through the use of the product.) The primary source of information on these test methods and performance standards are manufacturers of biobased products within these items. Additional test methods and performance standards are also identified during meetings of the Interagency council and during the review process for each proposed rule. We have listed, under the detailed discussion of each item proposed for designation (presented in Section IV.B), the functional performance test methods, performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance associated with the functional aspects of products identified during the development of this Federal Register notice for these items.
While this process identifies many of the relevant test methods and standards, USDA recognizes that those identified herein do not represent all of the methods and standards that may be applicable for a designated item or for any individual product within the designated item. As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is requesting identification of any other relevant performance standards and measures of performance. As the program becomes fully implemented, these and other additional relevant performance standards will be available on the BioPreferred Web site
tandards that may be applicable for a designated item or for any individual product within the designated item. As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is requesting identification of any other relevant performance standards and measures of performance. As the program becomes fully implemented, these and other additional relevant performance standards will be available on the BioPreferred Web site.
In gathering information relevant to the analyses discussed above for this proposed rule, USDA has made extensive efforts to contact and request information and product samples within the items proposed for designation. For product information, USDA has attempted to contact representatives of the manufacturers of biobased products identified by the preferred procurement program. For product samples on which to conduct biobased content tests and BEES analysis, USDA has attempted to obtain samples and BEES input information for at least five different suppliers of products within each item in today's proposed rule. However, because the submission of information and samples is on a strictly voluntary basis, USDA was able to obtain information and samples only from those manufacturers who were willing voluntarily to invest the resources required to gather and submit the information and samples. The data presented are all the data that were submitted in response to USDA requests for information from manufacturers of the products within the items proposed for designation. While USDA would prefer to have complete data on the full range of products within each item, the data that were submitted are sufficient to support designation of the items in today's proposed rule.
To propose an item for designation, USDA must have sufficient information on a sufficient number of products within an item to be able to assess its availability and its economic and technological feasibility, including its life-cycle costs. For some items, there may be numerous products available. For other items, there may be very few
B
port designation of the items in today's proposed rule.
To propose an item for designation, USDA must have sufficient information on a sufficient number of products within an item to be able to assess its availability and its economic and technological feasibility, including its life-cycle costs. For some items, there may be numerous products available. For other items, there may be very few
B. Items Proposed for Designation
USDA uses a model (as summarized below) to identify and prioritize items for designation. Through this model, USDA has identified over 100 items for potential designation under the preferred procurement program. A list of these items and information on the model can be accessed on the BioPreferred Web site at http://www.biopreferred.gov.
In general, items are developed and prioritized for designation by evaluating them against program criteria established by USDA and by gathering information from other government agencies, private industry groups, and manufacturers. These evaluations begin by look at the cost, performance, and availability of products within each item. USDA then considers the following points:
• Are there manufacturers interested in providing the necessary test information on products within a particular item?
• Are there a number of manufacturers producing biobased products in this item?
• Are there products available in this item?
• What level of difficulty is expected when designating this item?
• Is there Federal demand for the product?
• Are Federal procurement personnel looking for biobased products?
• Will an item create a high demand for biobased feed stock?
• Does manufacturing of products within this item increase potential for rural development?
After completing this evaluation, USDA prioritizes the list of items for designation
ty is expected when designating this item?
• Is there Federal demand for the product?
• Are Federal procurement personnel looking for biobased products?
• Will an item create a high demand for biobased feed stock?
• Does manufacturing of products within this item increase potential for rural development?
After completing this evaluation, USDA prioritizes the list of items for designation. USDA then gathers information on products within the highest priority items and, as sufficient information becomes available for groups of approximately 10 items, a new rulemaking package is developed to designate the items within that group. USDA points out that the list of items may change, with items being added or dropped, and that the order in which items are proposed for designation is likely to change because the information necessary to designate an item may take more time to obtain than an item lower on the list.
In today's proposed rule, USDA is proposing to designate the following items for the preferred procurement program: Chain and cable lubricants; corrosion preventatives; food cleaners; forming lubricants; gear lubricants; general purpose household cleaners; industrial cleaners; multipurpose cleaners; and parts wash solutions. USDA has determined that each of these proposed items meets the necessary statutory requirements—namely, that they are being produced with biobased products and that their procurement by procuring agencies will carry out the following objectives of section 9002:
• To increase demand for biobased products, which would in turn increase demand for agricultural commodities that can serve as feedstocks for the production of biobased products;
• To spur development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities; and
• To enhance the Nation's energy security by substituting biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural gas
ich would in turn increase demand for agricultural commodities that can serve as feedstocks for the production of biobased products;
• To spur development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities; and
• To enhance the Nation's energy security by substituting biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural gas.
Further, USDA has sufficient information on the items to determine their availability and to conduct the requisite analyses to determine their biobased content and their economic and technological feasibility, including life-cycle costs.
Overlap with EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guideline program for recovered content products. In today's proposed rule, one item may overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product “Re-refined Lubricating Oils.” This item is “gear lubricants.” For this item, USDA is requesting that information on the qualifying biobased “gear lubricants” be made available by their manufacturers to assist Federal agencies in determining if an overlap exists between “gear lubricants” and “Re-refined Lubricating Oils” (the applicable EPA-designated recovered content product).
As noted earlier in this preamble, USDA is requesting information on overlap situations to further help procuring agencies make informed decisions when faced with purchasing a recovered content material product or a biobased product. As this information is developed, USDA will make it available on the BioPreferred Web site.
Exemptions. As explained in the May 14, 2008 Federal Register notice (73 FR 27928) promulgating the Round 2 designated items, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are exempt from the procurement preference requirements that would be afforded to the items contained in today's proposed rule with respect to products used in space applications and combat and combat-related applications, respectively
egister notice (73 FR 27928) promulgating the Round 2 designated items, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are exempt from the procurement preference requirements that would be afforded to the items contained in today's proposed rule with respect to products used in space applications and combat and combat-related applications, respectively. In other words, they would apply to operations underlying NASA's and DoD's mission, such as janitorial services contracts, but not to uses on the space shuttle and military equipment. These “blanket” exemptions are contained in subpart A of part 2902. Therefore, today's proposed rule would not apply to NASA and DoD, as provided in subpart A of part 2902.
Although each item in today's proposed rule would be exempt from the procurement preference requirement, this exemption does not extend to contractors performing work for NASA or DoD other than direct maintenance and support of the space shuttle and combat equipment. For example, if a contractor is producing a part for use on the space shuttle, the metalworking fluid the contractor uses to produce the part should be biobased (provided it meets the specifications for metalworking). The exemption does apply, however, if the product being purchased by the contractor is for use in combat or combat-related missions or for use in space applications. For example, if the part being produced by the contractor would actually be part of the space shuttle, then the exemption applies.
USDA points out that it is not the intent of these exemptions to imply that biobased products are inferior to non-biobased products. If manufacturers of biobased products can meet the concerns of these two agencies, USDA is willing to reconsider such exemptions on an item-by-item basis.
Each of the proposed designated items are discussed in the following sections.
1
en the exemption applies.
USDA points out that it is not the intent of these exemptions to imply that biobased products are inferior to non-biobased products. If manufacturers of biobased products can meet the concerns of these two agencies, USDA is willing to reconsider such exemptions on an item-by-item basis.
Each of the proposed designated items are discussed in the following sections.
1. Chain and Cable Lubricants
Chain and cable lubricants are products designed to provide lubrication for such applications as bar and roller chains, sprockets, and wire
USDA identified 20 different manufacturers producing 37 individual biobased chain and cable lubricant products. These 20 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased chain and cable lubricants, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified two test methods (as shown below) used in evaluating products within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance, applicable to products within this item, the two test methods identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
• Shake Flask Test (CG-2000) used by the lubricant industry to evaluate biodegradability (Environmental Protection Agency #560/6-82-003); and
• Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (Environmental Protection Agency #600/4-90-027)
two test methods identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
• Shake Flask Test (CG-2000) used by the lubricant industry to evaluate biodegradability (Environmental Protection Agency #560/6-82-003); and
• Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (Environmental Protection Agency #600/4-90-027).
USDA contacted procurement officials with various procuring agencies including the GSA, several offices within the Defense Logistics Agency, the OFEE, USDA Departmental Administration, the National Park Service, EPA, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and OMB in an effort to gather information on the purchases of chain and cable lubricants and products within the other eight items proposed for designation today. Communications with these officials led to the conclusion that obtaining credible current usage statistics and specific potential markets within the Federal government for biobased products within the proposed designated items is not possible at this time.
Most of the contacted officials reported that procurement data are reported in higher level groupings of materials and supplies than the proposed designated items. Using terms that best match the items in today's proposed rule, USDA queried the GSA database for Federal purchases of products within today's proposed items. The results indicate purchases of products within items in today's proposed rule. The results of this inquiry can be found in the technical support document for this proposed rule. Also, the purchasing of such materials as part of contracted services and with individual purchase cards used to purchase products locally further obscures credible data on purchases of specific products.
USDA also investigated the Web site FEDBIZOPPS.gov, a site which lists Federal contract purchase opportunities greater than $25,000
und in the technical support document for this proposed rule. Also, the purchasing of such materials as part of contracted services and with individual purchase cards used to purchase products locally further obscures credible data on purchases of specific products.
USDA also investigated the Web site FEDBIZOPPS.gov, a site which lists Federal contract purchase opportunities greater than $25,000. The information provided on this Web site, however, is for broad categories of products rather than the specific types of products that are included in today's proposed rule. Therefore, USDA has been unable to obtain data on the amount of chain and cable lubricants purchased by procuring agencies. However, Federal agencies perform, or procure contract services to perform, activities, such as maintenance, clean-up, and tree removal, in which chain and cable lubricants are used. For example, although quantities were not obtained, the National Park Service is known to be using biobased chain and cable lubricants at some of its parks. Thus, there is a need for chain and cable lubricants. Designation of “chain and cable lubricants” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of biobased chain and cable lubricants was performed for three of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for these three lubricants are presented in Table 1a. The environmental performance scores are presented in Table 1b and in Figure 1
products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of biobased chain and cable lubricants was performed for three of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for these three lubricants are presented in Table 1a. The environmental performance scores are presented in Table 1b and in Figure 1.
Table 1a—Impact Values for Chain and Cable Lubricants Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B Sample C Acidification millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents 7,210 6,470 5,130 Criteria Air Pollutants micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years 0.532 0.467 0.840 Ecological Toxicity grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid 77.1 69.7 1,950 Eutrophication grams of nitrogen equivalent 105 94.6 246 Fossil Fuel Depletion megajoules of surplus energy 43.6 39.9 83.6 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 9,710 8,660 29,500 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 0 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 61,500 54,800 316,000 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 0 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 1.15E-07 9.69E-08 1.30E-04 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 124 112 95.9 Water Intake liters of water 1,430 1,290 6,530 Functional Unit 1 gallon. Table 1b—Environmental Performance Scores for Chain and Cable Lubricants Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B Sample C Total Environmental Performance Score 1 0.0674 0.0606 0.4202 Acidification (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003 Ecological Toxicity (11%) 0.0104 0.0094 0.2630 Eutrophication (5%) 0.0272 0.0246 0.0640 Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0062 0.0056 0.0118 Global Warming (16%) 0.0061 0.0054 0.0184 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0043 0.0038 0.0219 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0049 0.0044 0.0038 Water Intake (3%) 0.0081 0.0073 0.0370 Economic Performan
0.0094 0.2630 Eutrophication (5%) 0.0272 0.0246 0.0640 Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0062 0.0056 0.0118 Global Warming (16%) 0.0061 0.0054 0.0184 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0043 0.0038 0.0219 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0049 0.0044 0.0038 Water Intake (3%) 0.0081 0.0073 0.0370 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 10.17 13.78 20.20 First Cost 10.17 13.78 20.20 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) ( 3 ) ( 3 ) Functional Unit 1 gallon. 1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 2 Costs are per functional unit. 3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. EP23OC08.000
As seen in Table 1b, for the analyzed chain and cable lubricants, the total environmental performance score ranges from 0.0606 to 0.4202 points per gallon of product and the life-cycle costs range from $10.17 to $20.20 (present value dollars) per gallon of product.
When evaluating the environmental performance scores presented in Table 1b, as well as in the subsequent tables presented in this preamble, it should be noted that comparisons of the environmental performance scores are valid only among products within a designated item. Thus, comparisons of the scores presented in Table 1b and the scores presented in tables for other proposed designated items are not meaningful. On the other hand, one can compare the impact values reported in Table 1a with those in the other, corresponding impact value tables. But such a comparison would only be useful if the compared products would be used as substitutes for each other.
The numbers in parentheses following each of the 12 environmental impacts listed in the tables presenting the environmental performance scores in this preamble indicate weighting factors
the impact values reported in Table 1a with those in the other, corresponding impact value tables. But such a comparison would only be useful if the compared products would be used as substitutes for each other.
The numbers in parentheses following each of the 12 environmental impacts listed in the tables presenting the environmental performance scores in this preamble indicate weighting factors. The weighting factors represent the relative importance of the 12 environmental parameters, including human health impacts, which contribute to the BEES environmental performance score. They are derived from lists of the relative importance of these parameters developed by the EPA
Life-cycle costs presented in the tables in this preamble are per the appropriate functional unit for the proposed designated item. Future costs are discounted to present value using the OMB discount rate of 3.9 percent.
Present value dollars presented in this preamble represent the sum of all costs associated with a product over a fixed period of time, including any applicable costs for purchase, installation, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. Present value dollars presented in this preamble reflect 2006 dollars. Dollars are expressed in present value terms to adjust for the effects of inflation. The complete results of the BEES analysis, extrapolated to the item level, for each item proposed for designation in today's proposed rule can be found at http://www.biopreferred.gov.
2. Corrosion Preventatives
Corrosion preventatives are products used to prevent the deterioration (corrosion) of metals.
USDA identified 15 different manufacturers producing 97 individual biobased corrosion preventatives products. These 15 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased corrosion preventatives, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially
of metals.
USDA identified 15 different manufacturers producing 97 individual biobased corrosion preventatives products. These 15 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased corrosion preventatives, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified several test methods and one performance standard used in evaluating products within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance, applicable to products within this item, the test methods and performance standard identified by manufacturers of products within this item, are:
Test Methods
• ASTM D1735, “Standard Practice for Testing Water Resistance of Coatings Using Water Fog Apparatus;”
• ASTM D1748, “Standard Test Method for Rust Protection by Metal Preservatives in the Humidity Cabinet;”
• ASTM D445, “Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity);”
• ASTM D92, “Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup Tester;” and
• ASTM D97, “Standard Test Method for Pour Point of Petroleum Products.”
Performance Standards
• National Association of Corrosion Engineers #TM0374-2001, Laboratory Screening Tests to Determine the Ability of Scale Inhibitors to Prevent the Precipitation of Calcium Sulfate and Calcium Carbonate from Solution (for Oil and Gas Production Systems).
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased products within the Federal government using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants”. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, various Federal agencies procure corrosion preventatives, or procure contract services such as maintenance services, that use corrosion preventatives
ion Systems).
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased products within the Federal government using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants”. These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, various Federal agencies procure corrosion preventatives, or procure contract services such as maintenance services, that use corrosion preventatives. Thus, they have a need for corrosion preventatives. Designation of “corrosive preventatives” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of corrosion preventatives was performed for two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for these two corrosion preventatives are presented in Table 2a. The environmental performance scores are presented in Table 2b and in Figure 2.
Table 2a—Impact Values for Corrosion Preventatives Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B Acidification millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents 13,300 26,000 Criteria Air Pollutants micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years 1.79 2.18 Ecological Toxicity grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid 141 291 Eutrophication grams of nitrogen equivalent 120 360 Fossil Fuel Depletion megajoules of surplus energy 652 301 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 19,900 37,500 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 559,000 2.36E+07 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 1.98E-06 1.88E-05 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 245 454 Water Intake liters of water 1,570 4,870 Functional Unit 5 gallons
de equivalents 19,900 37,500 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 559,000 2.36E+07 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 1.98E-06 1.88E-05 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 245 454 Water Intake liters of water 1,570 4,870 Functional Unit 5 gallons. Table 2b—Environmental Performance Scores for Corrosion Preventatives Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B Total Environmental Performance Score 1 0.2129 0.2684 Acidification (5%) 0 0 Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) 0.0006 0.0007 Ecological Toxicity (11%) 0.0190 0.0389 Eutrophication (5%) 0.0312 0.0937 Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0924 0.0431 Global Warming (16%) 0.0124 0.0236 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0 0 Human Health (11%) 0.0387 0.0228 Indoor Air (11%) 0 0 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0 0 Smog (6%) 0.0097 0.0180 Water Intake (3%) 0.0089 0.0276 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 114.75 77.09 First Cost 114.75 77.09 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) Functional Unit 5 gallons. 1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 2 Costs are per functional unit. 3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. EP23OC08.001
As seen in Table 2b, the total environmental performance scores for the two corrosion preventatives analyzed are 0.2194 and 0.2684 per five gallons of product and the respective life-cycle costs are $114.75 and $77.09 (present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
3. Food Cleaners
Food cleaners are anti-microbial products used to clean the outer layer of various food products, such as fruits, vegetables, and meats.
USDA identified 11 different manufacturers producing 15 individual biobased food cleaner products
84 per five gallons of product and the respective life-cycle costs are $114.75 and $77.09 (present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
3. Food Cleaners
Food cleaners are anti-microbial products used to clean the outer layer of various food products, such as fruits, vegetables, and meats.
USDA identified 11 different manufacturers producing 15 individual biobased food cleaner products. These 11 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased food cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified several test methods, one performance standard, and one other measure of performance used in evaluating products within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance applicable to products within this item, those identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
• Federal Test Method Standard #536A, Soap and soap products (including synthetic detergents) sampling and testing.
Performance Standards
• Boeing #D6-7127, Cleaning Interiors of Commercial Transport Aircraft; and
• South Coast Air Quality Management District, certification as a Clean Air Solvent.
Product Certifications and Other Measures
• U.S. Navy #Navsea 6840—U.S. Navy surface ship (non-submarine) authorized chemical cleaning products and dispensing systems.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased products within the Federal government using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants.” These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies procure such products or contract for food preparation services that use such products. Thus, there is a need for food cleaners
ispensing systems.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased products within the Federal government using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants.” These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies procure such products or contract for food preparation services that use such products. Thus, there is a need for food cleaners. Designation of biobased “food cleaners” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of biobased food cleaners was performed for one of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for this food cleaner are presented in Table 3a. The environmental performance scores are presented in Table 3b and in Figure 3.
Table 3a—Impact Values for Food Cleaners Environmental impact area Units Sample A Acidification millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents 81.8 Criteria Air Pollutants micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years 0.0216 Ecological Toxicity grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid 0.774 Eutrophication grams of nitrogen equivalent 0.104 Fossil Fuel Depletion megajoules of surplus energy 2.43 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 148 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 2,110 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 7.98E-08 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 1.09 Water Intake liters of water 4.39 Functional Unit 1 gallon
rgy 2.43 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 148 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 2,110 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 7.98E-08 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 1.09 Water Intake liters of water 4.39 Functional Unit 1 gallon. Table 3b—Environmental Performance Scores for Food Cleaners Environmental impact area Sample A Total Environmental Performance Score 1 0.0006 Acidification (5%) 0.0000 Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) 0.0000 Ecological Toxicity (11%) 0.0001 Eutrophication (5%) 0.0000 Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0003 Global Warming (16%) 0.0001 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0001 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0000 Water Intake (3%) 0.0000 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 4.00 First Cost 4.00 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) Functional Unit Gallon of food cleaner. 1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 2 Costs are per functional unit. 3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. EP23OC08.002
As seen in Table 3b, the total environmental performance score and the life-cycle costs of the food cleaner analyzed are, respectively, 0.0006 points per gallon of product and $4.00 (present value dollars) per gallon of product.
4. Forming Lubricants
Forming lubricants are products designed to provide lubricity during metalworking applications that are performed under extreme pressure conditions. Such applications include tube bending, stretch forming, press braking, and swaging.
USDA identified three different manufacturers producing 13 individual biobased forming lubricant products
dollars) per gallon of product.
4. Forming Lubricants
Forming lubricants are products designed to provide lubricity during metalworking applications that are performed under extreme pressure conditions. Such applications include tube bending, stretch forming, press braking, and swaging.
USDA identified three different manufacturers producing 13 individual biobased forming lubricant products. These three manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased forming lubricants, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified two test methods (as shown below) used in evaluating products within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance applicable to products within this item, those identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
• Boeing #BAC 5001-4 Flareless Tube End Fabrication; and
• Testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (EPA #560/6-82-003).
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased products within the Federal government using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants.” These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies own and operate metalworking machinery that operates under extreme pressure. In addition, Federal agencies contract for services involving the use of similar equipment. Thus, there is a need for forming lubricants. Designation of “forming lubricants” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of forming lubricants was performed for one of the products using the BEES analytical tool
ct for services involving the use of similar equipment. Thus, there is a need for forming lubricants. Designation of “forming lubricants” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of forming lubricants was performed for one of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for this forming lubricant are presented in Table 4a. The environmental performance scores are presented in Table 4b and in Figure 4.
Table 4a—Impact Values for Forming Lubricants Environmental impact area Units Sample A Acidification millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents 1,320 Criteria Air Pollutants micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years 0.267 Ecological Toxicity grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid 32.7 Eutrophication grams of nitrogen equivalent 11.3 Fossil Fuel Depletion megajoules of surplus energy 76.0 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 4,450 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 60,000 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 2.59E-05 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 25.6 Water Intake liters of water 164 Functional Unit 1 gallon. Table 4b—Environmental Performance Scores for Forming Lubricants Environmental impact area Sample A Total Environmental Performance Score 1 0.0271 Acidification (5%) 0.0000 Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) 0.0001 Ecological Toxicity (11%) 0.0044 Eutrophication (5%) 0.0029 Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0108 Global Warming (16%) 0.0028 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0042 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0010 Water Intake (3%) 0.0009 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 18.50 First Cost 18.50 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) Functional Unit ( 4 ) 1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 2 Costs are per functional unit
epletion (5%) 0.0108 Global Warming (16%) 0.0028 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0042 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0010 Water Intake (3%) 0.0009 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 18.50 First Cost 18.50 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) Functional Unit ( 4 ) 1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 2 Costs are per functional unit. 3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 4 One gallon of forming lubricant. As seen in Table 4b, the total environmental performance score and the life-cycle cost of the submitted forming lubricant are, respectively, 0.0271 points per gallon of product and $18.50 (present value dollars) per gallon of product.
EP23OC08.003
5. Gear Lubricants
Gear lubricants are substances, such as greases and oils, which reduce friction when applied to a toothed machine part (such as a wheel or cylinder) that meshes with another toothed part to transmit motion or to change speed or direction. Unlike penetrating lubricants, which would be applied to frozen gears to loosen them, gear lubricants are designed to be applied to functional gears to reduce friction while in operation.
Qualifying products within this item may overlap with the EPA-designated recovered content product: “Re-refined Lubricating Oils”.
USDA identified nine different manufacturers producing 24 individual biobased gear lubricant products. These nine manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased gear lubricants, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified test methods, performance standards, and other measures of performance used in evaluating the performance of products within this item
acturers of biobased gear lubricants, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified test methods, performance standards, and other measures of performance used in evaluating the performance of products within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance applicable to products within this item, those identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
• ASTM D1404/D1404M, “Standard Test Method for Estimation of Deleterious Particles for Lubricating Grease;”
• ASTM D2270, “Standard Practice for Calculating Viscosity Index from Kinematic Viscosity at 40 and 100 °C;”
• ASTM D2619, “Standard Test Method for Hydrolytic Stability of Hydraulic Fluids (Beverage Bottle Method);”
• ASTM D2711, “Standard Test Method for Demulsibility Characteristics of Lubricating Oils;”
• ASTM D445, “Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity);”
• ASTM D5864, “Standard Test Method for Determining Aerobic Aquatic Biodegradation of Lubricants or Their Components;”
• ASTM D665, “Standard Test Method for Rust-Preventing Characteristics of Inhibited Mineral Oil in the Presence of Water;”
• ASTM D892, “Standard Test Method for Foaming Characteristics of Lubricating Oils;”
• ASTM D92, “Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup Tester;”
• ASTM D97, “Standard Test Method for Pour Point of Petroleum Products;”
• ASTM D974, “Standard Test Method for Acid and Base Number by Color-Indicator Titration;”
• ASTM D2266, “Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method);”
• Testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (EPA #560/6-82-003);
• Internation
er;”
• ASTM D97, “Standard Test Method for Pour Point of Petroleum Products;”
• ASTM D974, “Standard Test Method for Acid and Base Number by Color-Indicator Titration;”
• ASTM D2266, “Standard Test Method for Wear Preventive Characteristics of Lubricating Grease (Four-Ball Method);”
• Testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (EPA #560/6-82-003);
• International Organization for Standardization #ISO 150—Specifies the requirements and the corresponding methods of test for raw, refined, and boiled linseed oils for paints and varnishes;
• DIN 51517—Lubricants—Lubricating oils—Part 1: Lubricating oils C Requirements;
• FGZ (DIN51354), Gear wheel twisting/tension testing machine for lubricants;
• ISO 46—oil viscosity grade;
• SAE 30—viscosity grade;
• SAE GearGrade 80W90—viscosity grade; and
• ISO 90—oil viscosity grade.
Performance Standards
• American Petroleum Institute #API GL-3—Lubricant with light EP effect for transmissions and non-hypoid gear drives;
• American Petroleum Institute #API GL-4—Generally equivalent to military specification MIL-L-2105 for manual transmissions and spiral bevel gears engaged in moderate service (API GL-4 rates a gears lubricant's performance);
• AGMA 2-8A, R&O and EP gear lubes grades;
• ANSI/AGMA 9005-E02, Industrial Gear Lubricant; and
• DB s1.53.101, Meets or exceeds requirements of David Brown performance requirement
Petroleum Institute #API GL-4—Generally equivalent to military specification MIL-L-2105 for manual transmissions and spiral bevel gears engaged in moderate service (API GL-4 rates a gears lubricant's performance);
• AGMA 2-8A, R&O and EP gear lubes grades;
• ANSI/AGMA 9005-E02, Industrial Gear Lubricant; and
• DB s1.53.101, Meets or exceeds requirements of David Brown performance requirement.
Product Certifications and Other Measures
• American Petroleum Institute #API GL-1—Designates the type of service characteristics of automotive spiral-bevel and worm gear axles as well as some manually-operated transmissions operating under such mild conditions of low unit pressures and sliding velocities that straight mineral oil can be used satisfactorily; and
• American Petroleum Institute #API GL-2—Designates the type of service characteristics of automotive type worm gear axles operating under such conditions of load, temperature, and sliding velocities that lubricants satisfactory for API GL-1 service will not suffice (obsolete).
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased products within the Federal government using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants.” These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, many Federal agencies own or operate machinery, or procure contract services that require the use of machinery, that require gear lubricants. When EPA researched its designation of re-refined lubricating oils, including gear oil, the Defense Logistic Agency informed EPA that it had specifications for, and sold, gear oils. Thus, there is a need for gear lubricants. Designation of biobased “gear lubricants” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of biobased gear lubricants was performed for two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for these two gear lubricants are presented in Table 5a
ar lubricants. Designation of biobased “gear lubricants” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of biobased gear lubricants was performed for two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for these two gear lubricants are presented in Table 5a. The environmental performance scores are presented in Table 5b and in Figure 5.
Table 5a—Impact Values for Gear Lubricants Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B Acidification millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents 25,000 10,200 Criteria Air Pollutants micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years 2.79 2.96 Ecological Toxicity grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid 242 287 Eutrophication grams of nitrogen equivalent 308 47.0 Fossil Fuel Depletion megajoules of surplus energy 479 453 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 35,800 34,200 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 1,250,000 553,000 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chlorofluoro-carbon-11 equivalents 1.35E-06 1.04E-05 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 413 163 Water Intake liters of water 5,900 633 Functional Unit 5 gallons. Table 5b—Environmental Performance Scores for Gear Lubricants Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B Total Environmental Performance Score 1 0.3405 0.1856 Acidification (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) 0.0009 0.0009 Ecological Toxicity (11%) 0.0326 0.0387 Eutrophication (5%) 0.0802 0.0122 Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0679 0.0641 Global Warming (16%) 0.0224 0.0214 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0867 0.0383 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0164 0.0064 Water Intake (3%) 0.0334 0.0036 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 63.08 87.50 First Cost 63.08 87.50 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) ( 3 ) Functional Unit 5 gall
il Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0679 0.0641 Global Warming (16%) 0.0224 0.0214 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0867 0.0383 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0164 0.0064 Water Intake (3%) 0.0334 0.0036 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 63.08 87.50 First Cost 63.08 87.50 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) ( 3 ) Functional Unit 5 gallons of gear lubricant. 1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 2 Costs are per functional unit. 3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. EP23OC08.004
As seen in Table 5b, the total environmental performance scores are 0.1856 and 0.3405 points per five gallons of product. The life-cycle costs of the submitted biobased gear lubricants are $63.08 to $87.50 (present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
6. General Purpose Household Cleaners
General purpose household cleaners are substances used to clean common household surfaces found in the living spaces and on the possessions located in households or similar settings. Household cleaner products included in this item are those general purpose household cleaners specifically marketed as suitable for cleaning common household surfaces. In today's proposed rule, the definition of general purpose household cleaners excludes products that are formulated for use as disinfectants. Other products not included in this item are task-specific household cleaners, such as scouring cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, upholstery cleaners, laundry and dishwashing detergents, spot/stain removers, oven cleaners, and drain cleaners.
Procuring agencies should note that, as discussed in Section II of this preamble, not all biobased cleaning products are “environmentally preferable” to non-biobased products
t included in this item are task-specific household cleaners, such as scouring cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners, upholstery cleaners, laundry and dishwashing detergents, spot/stain removers, oven cleaners, and drain cleaners.
Procuring agencies should note that, as discussed in Section II of this preamble, not all biobased cleaning products are “environmentally preferable” to non-biobased products. Unless cleaning products have been formulated to contain no (or reduced levels of) metals and toxic and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life, the environment, and/or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable cleaning products, Federal agencies should compare the “cradle-to-grave” impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of both biobased and non-biobased products in order to determine which product is environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 16 different manufacturers producing 24 individual biobased general purpose household cleaner products. These 16 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased general purpose household cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified several test methods, a performance standard, and one other measure of performance (as shown below) used in evaluating products within this item
purpose household cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified several test methods, a performance standard, and one other measure of performance (as shown below) used in evaluating products within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance applicable to products within this item, those identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
• Boeing #D6-7127, Cleaning Interiors of Commercial Transport Aircraft;
• ASTM D1308, “Standard Test Method for Effect of Household Chemicals on Clear and Pigmented Organic Finishes”;
• Federal Test Method Standard #536A, Soap and Soap Products (Including Synthetic Detergents) sampling and testing; and
• South Coast Air Quality Management District, certification as a “Clean Air Solvent.”
Performance Standards
• Green Seal #8 (GS-8), Green Seal Environmental Standard for Household Cleaners; and
• Boeing #D6-7127, Cleaning Interiors of Commercial Transport Aircraft. Product Certifications and Other Measures
• United States Navy Navsea #6840—Surface ship (non-submarine) authorized chemical cleaning products and dispensing systems; and
• Green Seal #8 (GS-8), Green Seal Environmental Standard for Household Cleaners.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased products within the Federal government using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants.” These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies routinely perform cleaning and maintenance activities, or procure cleaning and maintenance services, that use these materials. Thus, they have a need for general purpose household cleaners and for services that require the use of household cleaners
nment using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants.” These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies routinely perform cleaning and maintenance activities, or procure cleaning and maintenance services, that use these materials. Thus, they have a need for general purpose household cleaners and for services that require the use of household cleaners. Designation of “general purpose household cleaners” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of biobased general purpose household cleaners was performed for two of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for these two general purpose household cleaners are presented in Table 6a. The environmental performance scores are presented in Table 6b and in Figure 6.
Table 6a—Impact Values for General Purpose Household Cleaners Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B Acidification millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents 4,080 1,510 Criteria Air Pollutants micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years 1.03 0.657 Ecological Toxicity grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid 351 8.76 Eutrophication grams of nitrogen equivalent 27.8 3.24 Fossil Fuel Depletion megajoules of surplus energy 175 38.8 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 13,600 3,000 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 109,000 30,600 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 1.95E-04 2.28E-06 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 69.3 23.6 Water Intake liters of water 389 20.9 Functional Unit 5 gallons
ioxide equivalents 13,600 3,000 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 109,000 30,600 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 1.95E-04 2.28E-06 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 69.3 23.6 Water Intake liters of water 389 20.9 Functional Unit 5 gallons. Table 6b—Environmental Performance Scores for General Purpose Household Cleaners Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B Total Environmental Performance Score 1 0.1005 0.0127 Acidification (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) 0.0003 0.0002 Ecological Toxicity (11%) 0.0473 0.0012 Eutrophication (5%) 0.0072 0.0008 Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0247 0.0055 Global Warming (16%) 0.0085 0.0019 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0076 0.0021 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0027 0.0009 Water Intake (3%) 0.0022 0.0001 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 65.63 27.50 First Cost 65.63 27.50 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) ( 3 ) Functional Unit 5 gallons. 1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 2 Costs are per functional unit. 3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. As seen in Table 6b, the total environmental performance scores are 0.0127 and 0.1005 points per five gallons of product. The life-cycle costs of the submitted household cleaners are $27.50 and $65.63 (present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
EP23OC08.005
7. Industrial Cleaners
Industrial cleaners are products used to remove contaminants, such as adhesives, inks, paint, dirt, soil, and grease, from parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment, vessels, floors, walls, and other production-related work areas
fe-cycle costs of the submitted household cleaners are $27.50 and $65.63 (present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
EP23OC08.005
7. Industrial Cleaners
Industrial cleaners are products used to remove contaminants, such as adhesives, inks, paint, dirt, soil, and grease, from parts, products, tools, machinery, equipment, vessels, floors, walls, and other production-related work areas. Cleaning operations are performed for a variety of reasons, such as safety and operability, and to avoid contamination of the products being manufactured or repaired at the facility. The cleaning products within this item are usually solvents, but may take other forms. They may be used in either straight solution or diluted with water in pressure washers, or in hand wiping applications in industrial or manufacturing settings, such as inside vessels.
Cleaners within this item are used in industrial settings in which production processes take place. This distinguishes these types of cleaners from institutional cleaners, which are used in settings where production processes do not take place.
Procuring agencies should note that, as discussed in Section II of this preamble, not all biobased cleaning products are “environmentally preferable” to non-biobased products. Unless cleaning products have been formulated to contain no (or reduced levels of) metals and toxic and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life, the environment, and/or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable cleaning products, Federal agencies should compare the “cradle-to-grave” impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of both biobased and non-biobased products in order to determine which product is environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 59 different manufacturers producing 122 individual biobased industrial cleaner and/or solvent products. The 59 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased industrial cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities
of both biobased and non-biobased products in order to determine which product is environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 59 different manufacturers producing 122 individual biobased industrial cleaner and/or solvent products. The 59 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased industrial cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified test methods, performance standards, and other measures of performance used in evaluating products within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance applicable to products within this item, those identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
• ASTM D445, “Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and the Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity);”
• ASTM D92, “Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup Tester;”
• ASTM D1364, “Standard Test Method for Water in Volatile Solvents (Karl Fischer Reagent Titration Method);” and
• Environmental Protection Agency Method #24—Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coating
ion of Dynamic Viscosity);”
• ASTM D92, “Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup Tester;”
• ASTM D1364, “Standard Test Method for Water in Volatile Solvents (Karl Fischer Reagent Titration Method);” and
• Environmental Protection Agency Method #24—Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coating.
Performance Standards
• ASTM D446, “Standard Specifications and Operating Instructions for Glass Capillary Kinematic Viscometers;”
• ASTM D13, “Standard Specification for Spirits of Turpentine;”
• ASTM D1836, “Standard Specification for Commercial Hexanes;”
• ASTM D235, “Standard Specification for Mineral Spirits (Petroleum Spirits) (Hydrocarbon Dry Cleaning Spirits);”
• ASTM D3278, “Standard Specification for 2-Ethoxyethyl Acetate (99% Grade);”
• Green Seal #GS-37, Green Seal Environmental Standard for General-Purpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners Used for Industrial and Institutional Purposes; and
• Boeing #BAC 5750, Solvent Cleaning.
Product Certifications and Other Measures
• Section 612 of EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP);
• Green Seal #GS-37, Green Seal Environmental Standard for General-Purpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners Used for Industrial and Institutional Purposes; and
• EPA's National Contingency Plan.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased products within the Federal government using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants.” These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies routinely use, or procure contract services, such as cleaning and maintenance services, that use industrial cleaners. Thus, there is a need for industrial cleaners. Designation of “industrial cleaners” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program
the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants.” These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies routinely use, or procure contract services, such as cleaning and maintenance services, that use industrial cleaners. Thus, there is a need for industrial cleaners. Designation of “industrial cleaners” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of biobased industrial cleaners was performed for three of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for these three products are presented in Table 7a. The environmental performance scores are presented in Table 7b and in Figure 7.
Table 7a—Impact Values for Industrial Cleaners Environmental impact area Units Sample A Sample B Sample C Acidification millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents 433 11,100 34,000 Criteria Air Pollutants micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years 0.134 3.56 16.2 Ecological Toxicity grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid 79.5 234 76.5 Eutrophication grams of nitrogen equivalent 0.971 58.7 45.2 Fossil Fuel Depletion megajoules of surplus energy 16.7 470 133 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 953 32,600 158,000 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 0 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 4,940 291,000 103,000 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 0 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 1.66E-08 2.21E-04 5.19E-06 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 15.5 139 198 Water Intake liters of water 48.7 623 287 Functional Unit 5 gallons of product
t Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 0 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 4,940 291,000 103,000 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 0 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 1.66E-08 2.21E-04 5.19E-06 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 15.5 139 198 Water Intake liters of water 48.7 623 287 Functional Unit 5 gallons of product. Table 7b—Environmental Performance Scores for Industrial Cleaners Environmental impact area Sample A Sample B Sample C Total Environmental Performance Score 1 0.0152 0.1641 0.1615 Acidification (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) 0.0000 0.0011 0.0051 Ecological Toxicity (11%) 0.0107 0.0316 0.0103 Eutrophication (5%) 0.0003 0.0153 0.0118 Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0024 0.0665 0.0189 Global Warming (16%) 0.0006 0.0204 0.0989 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0003 0.0202 0.0071 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0006 0.0055 0.0078 Water Intake (3%) 0.0003 0.0035 0.0016 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 8.85 82.00 84.95 First Cost 8.85 82.00 84.95 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) ( 3 ) ( 3 ) Functional Unit Five gallons of product. 1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 2 Costs are per functional unit. 3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. EP23OC08.006
As seen in Table 7b, the total environmental performance scores range from 0.0152 to 0.1641 per five gallons of product. The life-cycle costs of the submitted industrial cleaners range from $8.85 to $84.95 (present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
8. Multipurpose Cleaners
Multipurpose cleaners are used to clean dirt, grease, and grime from a variety of items and are used in both industrial and domestic settings
l environmental performance scores range from 0.0152 to 0.1641 per five gallons of product. The life-cycle costs of the submitted industrial cleaners range from $8.85 to $84.95 (present value dollars) per five gallons of product.
8. Multipurpose Cleaners
Multipurpose cleaners are used to clean dirt, grease, and grime from a variety of items and are used in both industrial and domestic settings. Multipurpose cleaners are intended for broader applications than those cleaners designated as general purpose household cleaners, task-specific cleaners (e.g., bathroom and spa cleaners), and industrial cleaners. In today's proposed rule, the definition of multipurpose cleaners excludes products that are formulated for use as disinfectants.
Procuring agencies should note that, as discussed in Section II of this preamble, not all biobased cleaning products are “environmentally preferable” to non-biobased products. Unless cleaning products have been formulated to contain no (or reduced levels of) metals and toxic and hazardous constituents, they can be harmful to aquatic life, the environment, and/or workers. When purchasing environmentally preferable cleaning products, Federal agencies should compare the “cradle-to-grave” impacts of the manufacture, use, and disposal of both biobased and non-biobased products in order to determine which product is environmentally preferable.
USDA identified 39 different manufacturers producing 61 individual biobased multipurpose cleaner products. These 39 manufacturers do not necessarily include all manufacturers of biobased multipurpose cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified several test methods and other measures of performance and one performance standard used in evaluating products within this item
acturers of biobased multipurpose cleaners, merely those identified during USDA information gathering activities. Information supplied by these manufacturers indicates that these products are being used commercially. In addition, manufacturers and stakeholders identified several test methods and other measures of performance and one performance standard used in evaluating products within this item. While there may be additional test methods, as well as performance standards, product certifications, and other measures of performance applicable to products within this item, those identified by manufacturers of products within this item are:
Test Methods
• ASTM D1298, “Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method”;
• ASTM D130, “Standard Test Method for Corrosiveness to Copper from Petroleum Products by Copper Strip Test”;
• ASTM D2500, “Standard Test Method for Cloud Point of Petroleum Products”;
• ASTM D86, “Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure”;
• Environmental Protection Agency Method #601, Purgeable Halocarbons;
• Environmental Protection Agency Method #602, Purgeable Aromatics;
• Environmental Protection Agency Method #608, Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs;
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development #OECD 301B—CO2 Evolution Test for Biodegradation;
• Society of Automotive Engineers #APR 1755B—Effect of Cleaning Agents on Aircraft Engine Materials, Stock Loss Test Method;
• Green Seal #GS-37, Green Seal Environmental Standard for General-
• Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA #600/4-90-027F).
Performance Standards
• Green Seal #GS-34—Standard Establishing Environmental Requirements for Cleaning/Degreasing Agents
leaning Agents on Aircraft Engine Materials, Stock Loss Test Method;
• Green Seal #GS-37, Green Seal Environmental Standard for General-
• Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA #600/4-90-027F).
Performance Standards
• Green Seal #GS-34—Standard Establishing Environmental Requirements for Cleaning/Degreasing Agents.
Product Certifications and Other Measures
• Choice Eco Logo (Canada);
• Acute Dermal Toxicity; and
• Acute Oral Toxicity.
USDA attempted to gather data on the potential market for biobased products within the Federal government using the procedure described in the section on “Chain and Cable Lubricants.” These attempts were largely unsuccessful. However, Federal agencies routinely use, or procure contract services that use, multipurpose cleaners in a variety of cleaning and maintenance activities. Thus, there is a need for multipurpose cleaners. Designation of “multipurpose cleaners” will promote the use of biobased products, furthering the objectives of this program.
An analysis of the environmental and human health benefits and the life-cycle costs of biobased multipurpose cleaners was performed for one of the products using the BEES analytical tool. The impact values for this multipurpose cleaner are presented in Table 8a. The environmental performance scores are presented in Table 8b and in Figure 8.
Table 8a—Summary of BEES Results for Multipurpose Cleaners—Impact Values Environmental impact area Units Sample A Acidification millimoles of hydrogen ion equivalents 2,910 Criteria Air Pollutants micro Disability-Adjusted Life Years 1.19 Ecological Toxicity grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid 158 Eutrophication grams of nitrogen equivalent 17.5 Fossil Fuel Depletion megajoules of surplus energy 5.12 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 4,680 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 47,100 Indoor Air grams of total volatile o
y-Adjusted Life Years 1.19 Ecological Toxicity grams of 2,4-dichloro-phenoxy-acetic acid 158 Eutrophication grams of nitrogen equivalent 17.5 Fossil Fuel Depletion megajoules of surplus energy 5.12 Global Warming grams of carbon dioxide equivalents 4,680 Habitat Alteration threatened and endangered species count 0 Human Health grams of toluene equivalent 47,100 Indoor Air grams of total volatile organic compounds 0 Ozone Depletion grams of chloroflouro-carbon-11 equivalents 4.53E-06 Smog grams of nitrogen oxide equivalents 65.1 Water Intake liters of water 4,000 Functional Unit (1) 1 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use multipurpose cleaner. Table 8b—Environmental Performance Scores for Multipurpose Cleaners Environmental impact area Sample A BEES Environmental Performance—Total Score 1 0.0649 Acidification (5%) 0.0000 Criteria Air Pollutants (6%) 0.0004 Ecological Toxicity (11%) 0.0213 Eutrophication (5%) 0.0046 Fossil Fuel Depletion (5%) 0.0072 Global Warming (16%) 0.0029 Habitat Alteration (16%) 0.0000 Human Health (11%) 0.0033 Indoor Air (11%) 0.0000 Ozone Depletion (5%) 0.0000 Smog (6%) 0.0026 Water Intake (3%) 0.0226 Economic Performance (Life-cycle Costs ($)) 2 5,950.00 First Cost 5,950.00 Future Cost (3.9%) ( 3 ) Functional Unit ( 4 ) 1 Numbers in parentheses indicate weighting factor. 2 Costs are per functional unit. 3 For this item, no significant/quantifiable performance or durability differences were identified among competing alternative products. Therefore, future costs were not calculated. 4 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use multipurpose cleaner. EP23OC08.007
As seen in Table 8b, the total environmental performance score and the life-cycle cost for the submitted multipurpose cleaner are, respectively, 0.0649 points per 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use product and $5,950.00 per 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use product.
9. Parts Wash Solutions
Parts wash solutions are products used in cleaning and machining parts to remove dirt and grease buildup on used parts
al environmental performance score and the life-cycle cost for the submitted multipurpose cleaner are, respectively, 0.0649 points per 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use product and $5,950.00 per 1,000 gallons of diluted and ready to use product.
9. Parts Wash Solutions
Parts wash solutions are products used in cle

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [73 FR 126 Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-25484.md)
- [73 FR 826 Transportation of Radioactive Material in Quantities of Concern](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-25630.md)
- [73 FR 836 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Merck and Co., Inc.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-25641.md)
- [73 FR 1131 S Corporation Guidance Under AJCA of 2004 and GOZA of 2005; Hearing Cancellation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-24.md)
- [73 FR 1162 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-27.md)
- [73 FR 1175 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Nevada; Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline Rule; Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; Redesignation of Truckee Meadows to Attainment for the Carbon Monoxide Standard](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-25636.md)
- [73 FR 1299 Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of the Methylene Chloride Standard](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-62.md)
- [73 FR 1851 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; NOX and SO2 Emissions Limitations for Fifteen Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-276.md)
- [73 FR 1853 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; DoD Law of War Program (DFARS Case 2006-D035)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-176.md)
- [73 FR 2206 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, and MD-10-10F Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-385.md)
- [73 FR 3226 Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern County Air Pollution Control District](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-192.md)
- [73 FR 3655 Existence of Proposed Airworthiness Design Standards for Acceptance Under the Primary Category Rule; Cubcrafters, Inc., Model PC18-160](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-852.md)
- [73 FR 4127 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Models FU24-954 and FU24A-954 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-1137.md)
- [73 FR 4131 Consolidated Returns; Intercompany Obligations; Hearing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-1145.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E8-25037. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.