[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4369]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 1, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 238
Degradable Plastic Ring Carriers; Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 238
[EPA/OSW-FR-93-DPRF-FFFFF; FRL-4842-2]
RIN 2050-AD09
Degradable Plastic Ring Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is issuing this final rule
in response to ``Degradable Plastic Ring Carriers'' (Pub. L. 100-556),
which in general provides that EPA shall require plastic ring carriers
(for beverage cans) be made of degradable material. The statute
requires that such ring carriers must be processed from a material
that, in addition to allowing the ring carrier to perform its intended
use, degrades quickly and does not pose a greater threat to the
environment than nondegradable materials.
The Agency has chosen to require ring carrier processors to test
their ring carriers using either a lab or an in situ test. The Agency
has chosen a degradability performance standard for ring carriers,
rather than specify a particular type of degradable plastic, to allow
the processors of ring carriers the flexibility to use new technology.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Part 238 is effective on September 1, 1994. The
incorporation by reference of American Society of Testing and Materials
standards adopted in this rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of September 1, 1994 in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a).
ADDRESSES: The public record for this rulemaking (docket number F-92-
DPRF-FFFFF) is located at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Docket Information Center, (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
public docket is located at EPA Headquarters and is available for
viewing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. Appointments may be made by calling (202) 260-9327. Copies
cost $0.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, (800) 424-
9346. In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810. For
information regarding specific aspects of this notice, contact Tracy
Bone, Office of Solid Waste (5306), USEPA, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC, 20460, telephone (202) 260-5649.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Authority
II. Background
A. Mechanisms of Degradation
B. Factors Affecting Degradation
C. State Laws
D. Other Programs and Investigations Concerning Degradable
Plastics
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
IV. Response to Comment
A. Definition of Terms
B. Testing Degradation
C. Measuring Degradation
D. Time Limit for Degradation
E. Preemption of State Regulations
V. Implementation and Summary of This Final Rule
VI. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Executive Order 12875
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. References
I. Authority
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating this rule
under the authority of sections 101, 102, and 103 of Public Law 100-556
(the ``Act'' or ``Statute''). Although this statute has been codified
in Subtitle B of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C.A. 6914b and 6914b-1), it does not amend RCRA. In section 101 of
this law, Congress found that: (1) Nondegradable plastic ring carrier
devices have been found in large quantities in the marine environment;
(2) fish and other wildlife have become entangled in such ring
carriers; (3) such ring carriers can remain intact in the marine
environment for decades, posing a threat to fish and other marine
wildlife; and (4) sixteen states (as of 1988) had enacted laws
requiring that ring carriers be made of degradable material in order to
reduce litter and protect fish and wildlife. (As of 1991, eleven
additional states have passed laws of this kind.)
As a result of these findings, Congress required EPA under section
103 of the Act to promulgate a rule that would require that plastic
ring carriers (as defined in section 102(1)) be made of ``naturally
degradable material which, when discarded, decomposes within a period
established by such regulation.'' 42 U.S.C. 6914b-1. The period to be
established under the rule for such decomposition or degradation is to
be ``the shortest period of time consistent with the intended use of
the item and the physical integrity required for such use.'' Id.
Section 102(2) of the Act defines ``naturally degradable material'' to
mean a ``material which, when discarded, will be reduced to
environmentally benign subunits under the action of normal
environmental forces, such as, among others, biological decomposition,
photodegradation, or hydrolysis.'' 42 U.S.C. 6914b(2). EPA, however,
may not require the use of a degradable ring carrier if it is not
``feasible'' or if the degradable ring carriers present greater threats
to the environment than nondegradable ring carriers. 42 U.S.C. 6914b-1.
II. Background
Concern about the disposal of plastic materials dates back to the
early 1970s. Degradable plastics were seen by some as a solution for
the problems of littering, landfill capacity, and wildlife entanglement
and were developed for agricultural uses (mulch film, seedling pots) as
well as medical applications (sutures, implants).
Renewed public concern over solid waste management and resource
conservation in the past few years has been met by a resurgence of
corporate and academic research into degradable plastics, and by the
commercialization of various products designed to degrade.
Specifically, there has been great interest in finding new degradable
plastics made from non-petroleum-derived materials.
A. Mechanisms of Degradation
Plastics are polymers (chemicals made of repeating subunits) most
often derived from petroleum. There are plastics derived from other
natural materials that have many of the same properties as petroleum-
derived plastics and have been used to make degradable products.
Starch, for example, is a naturally-derived plastic that may include
over 10,000 linked subunits. Lactic acid is used to make surgical
sutures that degrade within the body after the incision has healed.
Plastics degrade by a number of different physical and chemical
processes. In photodegradation, light causes physical changes that
cause the plastic to become brittle and crumble into small pieces.
Fragments may range in size from several centimeters in diameter to
invisible macromolecular particles. All ring carriers in use currently,
are made from low density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic and degrade in
this manner.
Plastics also may be designed to be completely broken down and
assimilated into the environment. These plastics differ from those that
undergo photodegradation in that chemical changes occur in the
structure of polymer molecules, and the ultimate products are different
from the original plastic. This chemical breakdown and alteration may
be caused by one of a number of processes, including chemical reactions
with natural compounds (e.g., dissolution by naturally-occurring acids)
and biological activity (e.g., biodegradation). Degradable plastics
also may be designed to combine degradation processes; they may break
down to smaller fragments due to photodegradation and then rely on
biodegradation to complete the process.
The Agency developed this rule based on data available for the
photodegradable petroleum-based plastic ethylene carbon monoxide (E/
CO), currently used for ring carriers. EPA discussed, in the proposal
(April 7, 1993, 58 FR 18062), new plastic technology that could be used
to make ring carriers. EPA does not, however, have specific information
or data from plastic technology (other than E/CO) that can be used to
process ring carriers. Despite the lack of information on new
technology, EPA does not intend to impose any barriers to potential
ring carrier products.
B. Factors Affecting Degradation
Two key factors affecting degradation are the time required for
degradation and the environment in which degradation takes place. Given
enough time or a harsh enough environment, all materials, including
plastics not designed to degrade, will degrade. A meaningful definition
of degradability must include a time limit that is appropriate for the
planned use of and the ultimate method of disposal for the specific
degradable product.
Environmental conditions also play a critical role in controlling
degradation. The rate of biodegradation is primarily determined by
temperature, moisture, and the presence of oxygen. For example,
biodegradation is very slow in municipal solid waste landfills since
these facilities are generally engineered to exclude water and air. In
desert environments, the absence of water retards biodegradation. In
northern climates, temperature is typically the factor that controls
biodegradation rates. The intensity and wavelengths of light are the
most important factors in determining the rate of photodegradation.
Light intensity and wavelength also play roles in some types of
biodegradation. Public Law 100-556 directs EPA to reduce the threat of
entanglement of marine fish and wildlife; therefore, EPA requires
degradation be tested under marine conditions (or equivalent laboratory
conditions).
C. State Laws
In 1977, the State of Vermont enacted the first law banning the use
of nondegradable ring carriers. By the end of 1991, 27 states had
passed legislation specifically prohibiting the sale of nondegradable
ring carriers. State legislation typically is written to prohibit the
sale of nondegradable ring carriers by retail stores. Most of these
states indicated that the primary purposes for adopting the legislation
were to promote litter reduction and to address wildlife entanglement
concerns. The states that have adopted legislation banning
nondegradable ring carriers, the dates the legislation took effect, the
time limit required for degradation under each state law, and allowable
mechanisms for degradation (as of 1992), are listed in reference 4.
D. Other Programs and Investigations Concerning Degradable Plastics
Reflecting the significant public and legislative interest in the
use of degradable plastics, a number of organizations have addressed
the issues related to degradable plastics in the past few years. These
organizations include EPA, the U.S. General Accounting Office, the
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Department of Defense, and many
state governments. Except for EPA, ASTM, and the Department of Defense,
the organizations and states addressing degradable plastics issues
typically are focusing more on litter and landfill capacity problems
than on the risk to marine mammals or on degradation in the marine
environment.
The ASTM D-20 committee (Ref. 1) has developed standards for
testing degradable plastics under certain environmental conditions
(including photodegradation and composting). EPA is using two ASTM
tests (specifically D-5208-91 and D-3826-91) in this rule. These tests
are recommended by ASTM for testing photodegradable plastic film. ASTM
is working on a test to simulate and measure degradation under marine
conditions which could be used to test biodegradable ring carriers
under lab conditions. Because of statutory deadlines, EPA can not wait
for ASTM to approve that test; therefore, we have included in this rule
an in situ test that could be used for biodegradable ring carriers. EPA
may, at a future date, review this rule to consider the effect of any
new ASTM marine test.
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
On April 7, 1993 (58 FR 18062), EPA issued a proposal in response
to Public Law 100-556. The Agency proposed a degradability performance
standard for ring carriers rather than specify a particular type of
degradable plastic. The proposed performance standard included the same
three factors in this rule's in situ test: A physical endpoint for
degradation, a time limit for degradation, and marine environmental
conditions. In the proposal, EPA referred to these factors as the
performance standard.
The proposed performance standard required testing in very specific
marine conditions that would be more costly than the currently employed
lab tests. Therefore, the proposal also allowed a processor of
photodegradable ring carriers to use lab tests to check the degradation
of the ring carriers as long as the lab tests were equivalent to the
performance standard.
IV. Response to Comment
EPA received comments on the proposed rule from eighteen persons or
groups. This section summarizes and addresses the major comments. A
discussion of the remaining comments can be found in a background
document available in the RCRA Docket Information Center. See the
``ADDRESSES'' section at the beginning of this rule for information on
getting a copy of the document.
A. Definition of Terms
In the April 7, 1993 proposed rule, EPA proposed three definitions:
``5 percent elongation at break'', ``processor'' and ``ring carrier.''
EPA received no comments on the definitions for ``processor'', and
``ring carrier''; therefore, they remain unchanged in the final rule.
In response to one comment, EPA has changed the definition for
``elongation at break''. In the proposed rule, EPA defined ``5 percent
elongation at break'' as `` * * * computed by dividing the length, at
break, of the material before it is tested by the length of the
material, at break, after it is stretched * * * '' The commenter
pointed out that the proposed definition incorrectly divided the
original length of the plastic by the length after it has been
stretched. The definition found in the final rule language corrects
this error as well as defines the term to more closely resemble the
ASTM definition.
EPA received many comments on the proposed rule's usage of terms
describing degradability such as: Photodegradation, biodegradation,
naturally-derived plastics, and synthetic plastics. The Agency defined
and used these terms in the preamble only for the purpose of discussing
the issues surrounding degradable plastics; EPA does not use any of
these terms in the final rule language. Therefore, regulatory
definitions for those terms are not necessary.
EPA added the word ``plastic'' to the title of the regulation in
response to one comment. The commentor expressed concern that this rule
may be construed to apply to cardboard beverage carriers. EPA added
``plastic'' to the title to clarify the scope of this rule as set by
Congress in Public Law 100-556. The definitions and requirements of
today's regulation are not necessarily relevant to degradable plastics
intended for other end uses.
B. Testing Degradation
After the formulation of the resin, environmental conditions are
the most important factors for determining the rate of degradation. For
example, a photodegradable plastic buried in a landfill will degrade at
essentially the same rate as the nondegradable formula of that plastic
because there is no source of light to degrade the plastic. The Statute
directs the Agency to protect marine wildlife. To achieve this goal,
the Agency proposed that ring carriers be tested for degradability by
being exposed, ``for 35 days, during June and July, to marine
conditions in a location below the latitude 26 degrees North, in
continental United States waters.'' The Agency proposed that the amount
of degradation could then be tested and measured, using ASTM D-3826-91,
to show 5 percent elongation at break. In addition to the in situ test
described above, the proposal also allowed processors of
photodegradable ring carriers to use lab tests to check the degradation
of the ring carriers (rather than a location below latitude 26 degrees
North) as long as the lab tests were equivalent to the in situ test. In
the preamble to the proposal EPA stated that, for the purpose of
testing a photodegradable ring carrier, a lab test following the ASTM
test D-5208-91 (using cycle A conditions for 250 light hours) is
equivalent to the in situ test and could be used by ring carrier
processors to meet the proposed regulation. EPA asked for comment on
the use of ASTM tests D-5208-91, D-3826-91 and G-26.
Several commenters felt that the ASTM tests for exposure to UV and
measurement of elongation at break (ASTM D-5208-91 and D-3826-91,
respectively) should be required in the rule language rather than
referred to in the preamble and urged that the in situ test (referred
to in the proposal as the performance standard) should be deleted. The
commenters felt that the in situ test was vague and not reproducible.
The ASTM tests were felt to be easily implemented and reliable.
In response to these comments, EPA decided to include the ASTM
tests in the final rule language as an option along with the in situ
test. EPA decided to not require the ASTM tests alone because of the
potential negative effects on future use of biodegradables or other new
technology. A purely biodegradable ring carrier (if one is developed)
could never pass these tests, which are based on UV absorption and
photodegradation rather than biodegradation. As a result, the final
rule provides that the processor of a ring carrier may choose either
the ASTM lab tests (ASTM D-5208-91 using cycle A conditions for 250
light hours and ASTM D-3826-91) or the in situ test (i.e., expose the
ring carrier for 35 days, during June and July, to marine conditions in
a location below the latitude 26 degrees North, in continental United
States waters to degrade the ring carrier material and then use D-3826-
91 to test for 5 percent elongation at break).
C. Measuring Degradation
The rate and extent of degradation typically are assessed by
measuring changes in the physical properties of a material. For
degradable plastics, a common method used to quantify the extent of
degradation is to assess the ``brittleness'' of the material by
measuring the amount of stress that must be applied before the plastic
breaks. Brittleness can be measured in many ways, including tensile
strength and the elongation of the plastic prior to breaking.
In the proposed rule, the Agency chose ``elongation at break'' to
measure degradation. There are data that show a close correlation
between the loss of elasticity (i.e., becomes brittle) and the rate of
degradation. Brittleness can be used to predict the loss of physical
integrity of the plastic which correlates to a reduced risk to wildlife
from entanglement.
Plastic that has degraded to the point of 5 percent elongation at
break will stretch only 5 percent of its original length before
crumbling. The LDPE resin used to make ring carriers stretches readily.
Ring carriers made from LDPE normally can be stretched to more than
several hundred percent of their original length before breaking. Once
the plastic material has been exposed to degrading factors, the
material becomes more brittle and no longer can stretch very much
before the plastic breaks. At approximately one hundred percent
elongation at break, ring carriers lose their ability to function and
the cans fall out of the carriers (Ref. 2).
``Elongation at break'' is accepted by many in the scientific
community as an appropriate method for measuring brittleness, and
therefore, degradation of degradable plastics. However, some commenters
interested in developing new ring carrier technology (for example, a
biodegradable plastic ring carrier) expressed concern that elongation
at break may not be appropriate for the new technology. Two commenters
suggested the use of respirometric tests (using the evolution of carbon
dioxide as a measure of biodegradation) for measuring degradation of
biodegradable plastics. Respirometric tests are extremely complicated
to design and run; in order to measure the carbon dioxide evolution,
the experiment must be run under very controlled laboratory conditions.
To EPA's knowledge, a respirometric test that reflects the marine
environment has not been developed. None of these commenters provided
specific suggestions or data on how EPA can measure degradation of
materials other than photodegradable plastics. Therefore, EPA has
decided to leave the measurement of elongation at break in the final
regulation, but has included the in situ test as an option for any new
technology that may be developed.
D. Time Limit for Degradation
The Agency is required by the statute to establish a time limit for
degradation that is ``the shortest period of time consistent with the
intended use of the item and the physical integrity required for such
use.'' Although it would be ideal to set a time limit that is not
expected to pose any risk to marine wildlife, it is likely that some
risk to marine wildlife will remain because it is not technically
possible to design a ring carrier that degrades immediately upon
disposal in a marine environment, but also is strong enough for its
intended use (holding beverages).
The Agency investigated whether or not the material currently being
used to make ring carriers, E/CO, degrades under marine conditions. EPA
requested, but did not receive, any information to suggest that a
faster time than measured in the EPA study (Ref. 3) could be achieved
by E/CO or any other plastic product (that can also function as a ring
carrier). E/CO clearly degrades when exposed to sunlight. Therefore,
the Agency has chosen a time limit for degradation that is based on the
best performance observed in actual testing of the E/CO ring carriers
currently in use. In a study (Ref. 3) performed by Research Triangle
Institute for EPA, it took 35 days for E/CO ring carriers to reach 5
percent elongation at break in the marine environment. The testing was
done during the months of June and July, off the coast of Miami,
Florida. The time degradable ring carriers require to degrade is a
fraction of the time nondegradable ring carriers were estimated to
remain intact; therefore, the risk to marine species from degradable
ring carriers will be much less than the risk posed by nondegradable
ring carriers.
Some commenters felt that E/CO could not meet the requirement
within the proposed time period. However, EPA has data to the contrary
which is included in the docket to this rule (Ref. 3). Moreover, an E/
CO processor commented that they believed E/CO could meet the proposed
lab tests.
Several commenters were concerned that the performance standard
would inhibit the development of new technology. Commenters also felt
that EPA should allow a longer timeframe for biodegradable ring
carriers to degrade than for photodegradables because of their greater
environmental desirability. EPA disagrees. Although EPA understands the
environmental advantages of a biodegradable carrier, the Agency
believes that any biodegradable ring carrier must degrade as quickly as
E/CO so as to meet the statute's goal of protection of marine fish and
wildlife.
Commenters noted that states may misunderstand that the 35 day time
limit hinges on testing in a warm and sunny environment. They feared
that states other than Florida might require the 35 day timeframe. EPA
realizes that a ring carrier that degrades in 35 days in Miami will
take longer to degrade in other parts of the country. It will also take
longer for a ring carrier to degrade in Miami during winter than during
the summer months (seasonal variation of UV is greater than geographic
variation).
By establishing the in situ test in Sec. 238.30(a), the Agency does
not intend to require that a ring carrier degrade to 5 percent
elongation at break in 35 days in coastal waters everywhere in the
United States. For example, this rule is not requiring a ring carrier
be processed so that it degrades within 35 days in northern coastal
waters (e.g., Maine). Such a ring carrier may not be able to be
marketed nationally because it may degrade too quickly in the south
during the summer and, therefore, would not be able to perform its
intended function. Therefore, the Agency wishes to emphasize that the
in-situ test is 35 days in marine conditions in a location below the
latitude 26 degrees North, not 35 days in any coastal water in the
continental United States.
E. Preemption of State Regulations
Over half of the states have enacted legislation requiring the use
of degradable ring carriers. State requirements (Ref. 4) vary widely in
timeframes for degradation, definitions of plastic articles covered,
testing requirements, and degradation processes. EPA received four
comments requesting that this rule preempt State regulations concerning
the degradability of plastic ring carriers. Commenters expressed
concern that the various state standards could force the processors and
distributors of ring carriers to use more than one type of ring carrier
rather than the one ring carrier currently used nationally.
EPA understands this concern and, in principle, agrees that one
degradable ring carrier should provide adequate protection for fish and
wildlife nationwide. However, Congress did not provide authority for
this rule to preempt state regulation of degradable ring carriers. Nor
does EPA believe Congress intended this rule to preempt more stringent
state and local regulations.
The Agency does not intend to interfere with local, state, or other
federal programs pertaining to the regulation of degradable plastics.
V. Implementation and Summary of This Final Rule
In summary, today's Final Rule requires that manufacturers and
importers of plastic ring carriers test their ring carriers to ensure
that they degrade. The processor of a ring carrier may choose either
the ASTM lab tests (ASTM D-5208-91, using cycle A conditions for 250
light hours, and D-3826-91) or the in situ test (expose for 35 days,
during June and July, to marine conditions in a location below the
latitude 26 degrees North, in continental United States waters and
then, using D-3826-91, test for 5 percent elongation at break).
This rule applies to both processors in the United States and also
to any person in the United States importing ring carriers. This rule
does not differentiate between ring carriers processed for use in the
United States and other countries because, at the time of sale to
beverage bottlers, the processor has no knowledge as to where the ring
carriers will be sold or used.
Each ring processor and importer must determine that its ring
carrier meets this degradable performance standard using either of the
tests described in today's rule, before marketing for use the ring
carriers. The Agency does not intend for processors and importers of
ring carriers to test each shipment of ring carriers to determine if
they meet the performance standard; rather they should test the ring
carrier each time the ring carrier's formulation or processing
procedure changes substantially. Importers must not knowingly
distribute ring carriers that do not meet this performance standard and
they should seek assurance from the processors that the ring carriers
meet the performance standard. If more than one processor manufactures
ring carriers using the same ring carrier material and processing
conditions, then they do not each have to test their own ring carrier;
they may share the test data.
VI. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to the Office of Management and Budget review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.''
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review because the Agency believes the
processors are able to meet these standards without changing current
technology.
B. Executive Order 12875
Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership'', is intended to reduce imposition of unfunded federal
mandates on state, local and tribal governments. This rule does not
impose a mandate on these governments. The requirements of this rule
apply solely to the plastic processors of ring carriers and do not
compel any action by state, local or tribal governments.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed or final
rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will
not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule will affect ring carrier processors, none of whom are
small entities. Small entities are not likely to enter into this market
because of the requirements for expensive application equipment and
quantities of materials. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
I hereby certify that this rule, as promulgated, will not have a
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities (as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act).
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Agency has determined that there are no additional reporting,
notification, or recordkeeping provisions associated with this rule.
Such provisions, were they included, would be submitted for approval to
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
VII. References
(1) Narayan, Ramani. ``Development of Standards for Degradable
Plastics by ASTM Subcommittee D-20.96 on Environmentally Degradable
Plastics''. 1992.
(2) Samaras, Peter, L. Letter to EPA, for ITW Hi-cone. August
31, 1992.
(3) Research Triangle Institute. ``Weatherability of Enhanced-
Degradable Plastics.'' Contract No. 68-02-4544. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 1992.
(4) Eastern Research Group. Current Status of State Regulations
Requiring Degradable Ring Carriers. March 1992.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 238
Environmental protection, Beverage ring carrier, Biodegradation,
Degradable plastic, Degradability standards, Imports, Incorporation by
reference, Photodegradation, Ring carrier, Waste treatment and
disposal.
Dated: February 16, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulation is amended by adding part 238 consisting of
Secs. 238.10, 238.20 and 238.30 to read as follows:
PART 238--DEGRADABLE PLASTIC RING CARRIERS
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
238.10 Purpose and applicability.
238.20 Definitions.
Subpart B--Requirements
238.30 Requirement.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6914b-1.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 238.10 Purpose and applicability.
The purpose of this part is to require that plastic ring carriers
be made of degradable materials as described in Secs. 238.20 and
238.30. The requirements of this part apply to all processors and
importers of plastic ring carriers in the United States as defined in
Sec. 238.20.
Sec. 238.20 Definitions.
For the purpose of this part:
Percent elongation at break means the percent increase in length of
the plastic material caused by a tensile load. Percent elongation at
break shall be calculated by dividing the extension at the moment of
rupture of the specimen by the initial gage length of the specimen and
multiplying by 100.
Processor means the persons or entities that produce ring carriers
ready for use as beverage carriers.
Ring carrier means any plastic ring carrier device that contains at
least one hole greater than 1\3/4\ inches in diameter which is made,
used, or designed for the purpose of packaging, transporting, or
carrying multipackaged cans or bottles.
Subpart B--Requirement
Sec. 238.30 Requirement.
(a) No processor or person shall manufacture or import, in bulk,
ring carriers intended for use in the United States unless they are
designed and manufactured so that the ring carriers degrade to the
point of 5 percent elongation at break, when tested in accordance with
ASTM D-3826-91, ``Standard Practice for Determining Degradation End
Point in Degradable Polyolefins Using a Tensile Test'', after the ring
carrier is exposed to, either:
(1) 250 light-hours of UV in accordance with ASTM D-5208-91,''
Standard Practice for Operating Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV) and
Condensation Apparatus for Exposure of Photodegradable Plastics'',
using cycle A; or
(2) 35 days, during June and July, to marine conditions in a
location below the latitude 26 degrees North, in continental United
States waters.
(b) The incorporation by reference of ASTM D-3826-91, ``Standard
Practice for Determining Degradation End Point in Degradable
Polyolefins Using a Tensile Test'', and ASTM D-5208-91, ``Standard
Practice for Operating Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV) and Condensation
Apparatus for Exposure of Photodegradable Plastics,'' was approved by
the director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available from the American Society of
Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Copies
may be inspected at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Docket Information Center, (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 or at the Office
of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the
date of the approval and notice of any change in these materials will
be published in the Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 94-4369 Filed 2-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
