536-2 -
18062
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 7,. 1993 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRCh.l
[FRL-4611-3J
Open Meeting of the Disinfection By-
products Negotiated Rulemaklng
Advisory Committee
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Disinfection By-Products
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee will meet on April 29—30 to
develop consensus that can be used as
the basis of a proposed rule.
DATES: On April 29, the meeting will
start at 9:30 a.m. and'go til completion.
On April 30, the meeting will start at 9
a.m. and go til completion though we'll
do bur best to end by 4 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet at
The Quality Hotel, 415 New Jersey
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001,
[202] G38-1616.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on substantive
aspects of the rale, call Stig Regli of
EPA's Water Office at {202] 260-7379.
For further information on the meeting,
call Gail Bingham, the Committee Co-
Chair, at [202] 778-9632.
Dated: April 2,1993.
Chris Kirtz,
Director, Consensus and Dispute Resolution
[FR Doc. 93-8126 Filed 4-6-93; 8:45 ami
BILLING CODE KBO-60-M
40 CFR Ch. I
[FRL-4611-6]
Open Meeting of the Architectural and
Industrial (AIM) Maintenance Coatings
Negotiated Rulemaklng Advisory
Committee
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The AIM Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee will
meet in Arlington, Virginia to attempt to
reach consensvis that can be used as the
basis of a proposed rule.
DATES: The meeting will take place on
April 22-23. On April 22, the meeting
will start at 10 a.m. and run until 6 p.m.
On April 23, it will start at 8 a.m., and
end by 3 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Sheraton National Hotel, Arlington,
Virginia, 22204, (703) 521-2122.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Persons needing further information on
substantive aspects of the rule should
call Ellen Ducey of EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and. Standards at 919—
541-5408. Persons needing further
information on meeting logistics should
call Barbara Stinson the Committee Co-
chair at 303-468-5822.
Dated: April 2,1993.
Chris Kirtz,
Director, Consensus and Dispute Resolution
Program.
[FR Doc. 93-8124 Filed 4-6-93; 8:45 am]
B1UJNO CODE «MO 50 «1
40 CFR Part 238
[FRL-4547-5]
BIN 2050-ADC9
Degradable Ring Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is issuing this proposal in
response to Pub. L. 100-556, which in
general requires that plastic ring carriers
(for bottles and cans) be made of
degradable material. Such ring carriers
must be processed from a material that,
in addition to performing its intended
function of carrying beverages, degrades
quickly and does not pose a greater
threat to the environment than
nondegradable materials. Currently, all
ring carriers, as defined by Pub. L. 100-
556, on the world market are processed
from a photodegradable resin.
The Agency has chosen to propose a
degradability performance standard for
ring carriers rather than specify a
particular type of degradable plastic.
The proposed performance standard
includes three factors: A physical
endpoint for degradation, a.time limit
for degradation, and marine
environmental conditions. This
performance standard will allow the
processors of ring carriers the. flexibility
needed to use new technology that
degrades differently than the current
photodegradable technology.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be submitted on or before May 7,
1993.
ADDRESSES: Persons who wish to
comment on this notice must provide an
original and two copies of their
comments, include the docket number
(F-93-DPRP-FFFFF), and send them to
EPA RCRA Docket (OS305), U.S. EPA,
401M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460. The background materials for
this regulation are available for viewing
at the RCRA Information Center (RIG),
roonxM2427, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.,
Washington DC 20460. The RIC is open
from 9 to 4 Monday through Friday,
except for federal holidays. The public
must make an appointment to review
docket materials. Call (202) 260-9327
for appointments. Copies cost $.15 per
page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For general
information, contact the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline toll free at (800) 424-
9346. In .the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810.
For information regrading specific
aspects of this notice, contact Tracy
Bone, Office of Solid Waste (OS-301),
U.S. EPA, 401M Street SW..
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)
260-5649..
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
II. Background
A. Mechanisms of Degradation
B. Factors Affecting Degradation
C. State Laws
D. Other Programs and Investigations
Concerning Degradable Plastics
III. EPA's Prppoised Findings
A. Feasibility of Producing Degradable
Ring Camel's
B. Comparison of Threats from
Nondegradaible Ring Carriers to
Degradable Ring Carriers
IV. Approach to This Proposed Ring Carrier
Standards
V. Major Issues
A. Definition of Degradable
B. Physical Endpoint for Degradation
C. Time Limit for Degradation
D. Environmental Conditions for
• Degradation.
E. Applicability and Compliance
F. Recycling - '
VI. Enforcement and Effective Date
VII. Administrative Designation and
Regulatory Analysis
A. Executive Order 12291
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. References
I. Authority
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing 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-l), 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
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 7, 1993 / Proposed Rules 18063
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 «nd
protect fish and wildlife. Since passage
of the Act, 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,
\vhen discarded, decomposes within a
period established by such regulation."
42 U.S.C. 6914b-l. 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 degradsble material"
to mean a "material which, when
discarded, will be reduced to
en vironmenjally 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-I.
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).
The mechanisms of plastics
degradation have been understood for
many years. Plastics scientists
traditionally have worked to inhibit the
degradative processes to make plastic
products more durable. In the 1970s, in
response to public concern regarding
solid waste management, scientists used
their understanding of plastics
degradation to develop an array of
degradable plastics. Virtually all of
these products are made of materials
developed in the 1970s.
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, thore has been great
interest in fiitHing degradable plastics
made from non-petroieum-derived
materials.
The Agency is unable to determine if
naturally-derived plastics have less
impact on the environment than the
petroleum-derived degradable plastics
in use for ring carriers because, as
. explained below, industry has not
developed any naturally-derived
. degradable plastics that can function as
a ring carrier (as defined in Pub. L. 100-
556) for the Agency to analyze. The
Agency has written this rule based on
data available for the photodegradable,
petroleum-based plastic currently used
for ring carriers; however, it does not
intend to impose any barriers to new
plastic technology.
A. Mechanisms of Degradation
Plastics are polymers (chemicals
made of repeating subunits) most often
derived from petroleum (referred to here
as "synthetic plastics"). There are
plastics derived from other natural
materials that have many of the same
properties as synthetic 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. Starch has been
blended with synthetic plastics to form
garbage bags that fall apart as the starch
degrades. 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. • '
The molecular structure of the plastic
is not changed.
Plastics may also 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 rety on
biodegradation to complete the process.
For the puiposes of this regulation,
. "biodegradable plastic" is meant to
describe any plastic that is intended to
completely assimilate into the
environment regardless of the derivation
of the material or the combination of
degradation processes involved in
assimilation. In this notice EPA will use
the term "degradable plastics" to
include photodegradable, and
biodegradable plastics as well as
plastics that degrade by any other
means. EPA requests comments on the
definitions in this section.
Synthetic plastics typically cannot be
.assimilated by living organisms;
consequently, they are usually not
biodegradable. Biodegradation,
however, is the most common
degradation process for naturally-
derived 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 and
targeted method of disposal for specific
degradable products. The time limit
varies significantly for degradable
products designed for different end
uses. For example, surgical sutures may '
be required to degrade in a few days,
while an agricultural mulch film may
have a desired life of several months
prior to its degradation.
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 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. Since landfills
exclude light, photodegradable plastics .
do not degrade quickly in landfills.
C. State Laws
In 1977, the State of Vermont enacted
the first law banning the use of ,
nondegradable ring carriers. By the end
-------
18064 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 65 / Wednesday, April 7, 1993 / Proposed Rules
of 1991,27 states have 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 nondegradabie ring carriers, the
dates the legislation took effect, the time
limit required for degradation under
each state law, and allowable
mechanisms for degradation, are listed
in reference 26.
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
and local governments. Except for EPA,
ASTM, and the Department of Defense,
the organizations and states addressing
degradable plastics issues 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).
They are working on a test to simulate
and measure degradation under marine
conditions. Further discussion of
ASTM's efforts concerning degradability
is found in section V. . • .•
The Department of Defense is working
on biodegradable plastics. The U.S.
Army Natick Research Development &
Engineering Center and its
Biodegradable Packaging Program is
working on ways to help the Navy
control its disposal of packaging wastes
at soa (Ref. 2). The major emphasis of
the program is to develop biodegradable
materials and products, such as
drinking cups, food wraps, and eating
utensils, using starch-based materials.
FTC has issued guidance (Ref. 3)
which applies to anyone making an
environmental claim that a product is
degradable. FDA is responsible for
reviewing product petitions designed
for food packaging, including any
product that may come in contact with
food that-may be degradable. Neither
organization intends to provide testing
standards for degradable plastic
products.
HI. EPA's Proposed Findings
A. Feasibility of-Producing Degradable
Ring Carriers
The statute requires the Agency to
require the use of degradable ring
carriers unless it determines that
manufacture of the ring carriers would
not be "feasible." To make this
determination, EPA examined the ring
carrier industry, which produces the
degradable resin currently being used in
ring carriers.
Plastic ring carriers used to package
multiple bottles and cans were first
manufactured in the early 1960s. Both
the design for these ring carriers and the
machinery used to apply the ring
carriers are patented by Illinois Tool
Works, Inc. (ITW).
In the past, ring carriers were made
exclusively from low density
polyethylene (LDPE). In the 1970s,
several state legislatures enacted laws
requiring ring carriers to be degradable.
Ethylene carbon monoxide, (E/CO) a
photodegradable resin, was developed
by Eastman Chemical in the 1940's and
commercialized by Du Pont Chemical.
In the late 1960's, anticipating litter
concern over the ring carrier, ITW Hi-
cone produced for use a ring carrier
made from E/CO. Use of
photodegradable ring carriers expanded
throughout the 1970s and 1980s as
additional states adopted laws banning
nondegradable ring carriers. Today, all'
ring carriers, as defined by Pub. L. 100—
556, on the world market are processed
from E/CO resin (Refs. 4 through 6).
E/CO is produced by incorporating
carbon monoxide into the plastic chain
of-polyethylene. E/CO degrades when
ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by the
carbon monoxide molecules, causing a
cleavage in the co-polymer chain (Ref.
1). Aside from the photodegradability of
E/CO, its general properties and
processing characteristics are almost
identical to LDPE (Ref. 7). .'
Three industry segments participate
in the manufacture and use of ring
carriers: (1) Resin suppliers; (2)
processors, who manufacture ring
carriers from plastic resin and market
them to end users; and (3) consumers of
ring carriers, including manufacturers
and bottlers of beverages (and some
other products) that are packaged with
ring carriers. Fifty to 75 million pounds
of plastic resin (Refs. 4 through 5) are
processed into 8.1 billion ring carriers
annually (Ref. 8). The ring carrier
market is approximately $135 million
per year (Ref.il). Three companies in the
United States c:urrently produce ring
carriers, as defined under section 102 of
Public Law 100-556. Ring carriers are
not currently processed in, or imported
from foreign markets.
Three companies supply the 50 to 75
million pound;! of plastic resins that are
,-used in the manufacture of ring carriers
each year (Ref. 4). These resin producers
previously supplied LDPE as well as E/
CO to ring.carrier processors (Refs. 4
through 6).
At the present time, ring carrier
processors do not plan to manufacture
ring carriers from degradable material
other than E/CO (Ref. 11). One of the
major ring carrier processors has tested
many of the degradable resins that are
commercially available in hopes of
finding a biodegradable plastic suitable
for production of ring carriers. This
company has stated that it has not found
an alternative to E/CO that meets its
standards for extrudability, strength,
durability, and degradation rate. Among
photodegradable resins, this company
claims that its Internal testing has
shown that none degrades as rapidly as
E/CO. Among current starch-based
biodegradable iresins, the company has
determined thait available resins are
hypersensitive to heat used in ring
carrier production, and will not meet
degradation time requirements in many
states (Ref. 11).
Resin suppliers reported that they are
not aware of any other currently
available degradable resins that could be
used in ring earner applications. They
also indicated lihat their own
development of an alternative to the E/
CO resin could be a lengthy process that
would involve extensive research and
testing (Refs. 5 and 6).
B, Comparison of Threats From
Nondegradable Ring Carriers to
Degradable Ring Carriers
This regulation is being written in
response to Public Law 100-556. The
statute and the legislative history
indicate entanglement of fish and
wildlife as the impetus for the Statute.
In developing today's proposed .
regulation, EPA must address the
degradation products that could be
released from degradable ring carriers.
The Statute requires that ring carriers be
made of "naturally degradable
materials", defined as a material which,
"when discarded, will be reduced to
environmentally benign subunits under
the action of normal environmental
forces." "Environmentally benign" is
not an easily definable term, because
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No..85 / Wednesday, April 7, 1993 / Proposed Rules 18085
some impacts maybe associated with
the release of virtually any compound or
material in *^° pTivirfmmpnt
Public Law 100-556 also specifies
that EPA will require ring carriers to be
processed from degradable material
unless "the Administrator determines
* * * that the byproducts of degradable
regulated items present a greater threat
to the environment than nondegradable
regulated items." To meet this
requirement, EPA has reviewed existing
information, including an EPA-funded
study on the environmental impacts of
both degradable and nondegradable ring
carriers (Ref. 16). On the basis of this
analysis, which is summarized in the
following section, EPA has tentatively
concluded that the data do not support
a conclusion that degradable ring
carriers pose more of a threat in the
environment than nondegradable ring
carriers, and that this issue should not
prevent the Agency from issuing today's
proposed regulation.
1. Environmental Concerns Related to
Nondegradable Ring Carriers
This section reviews the impact of
improper disposal of nondegradable
ring carriers as well as other types of
plastic packaging that may be
substituted for ring carriers. EPA's 1990
Report to Congress: Methods to Manage
and Control Plastic Wastes contains a
comprehensive review of the impacts of
plastics on marine fish and wildlife.
This discussion is based on that report
and on information from the draft EPA
report, Accelerated Environmental
Exposure, Laboratory Testing, and
Recyclability Study of Photo/
Biodegradable Polymers and the beach
cleanups sponsored by EPA and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and conducted by the
Center for Marine Conservation (CMC),
summarized in Cleaning North
America's Beaches; 1990 Beach Cleanup
Results (as well as from the 1988 and
1989 editions of this document).
The improper disposal of plastic
articles, including ring carriers, results
in aesthetic degradation of the
environment and exposes wildlife to
entanglement and ingestion hazards.
EPA was unable to find data on the
extent of wildlife hazards; however, if
large numbers of ring carriers are
improperly disposed, EPA believes that
these impacts could ba significant. The
ubiquity of ring carriers in the
environment is demonstrated by the
thousands of ring carriers collected
every year in beach cleanups around the
country. Table 1. shows the number of
ring carriers found in each state in 1988,
1989, and 1990 during CMC beach
cleanup campaigns.
The number of volunteers, varies from
year to year and from state to state;
therefore, data on the number of ring
carriers are not accurate enough to be
used to indicate yearly trends or
patterns among states. These data do
show, however, that large numbers of
ring carriers are found. Nearly 35,000
ring carriers were collected during the
1990 beach cleanup. The beach cleanup
survey did not attempt to differentiate
between ring carriers made of
degradable materials and .ring carriers "
made of nondegradable plastic;
therefore, these numbers most likely
include bolLh kinds of ring carriers.
EPA assumes that the total number of
ring carriers that wash up on the entire
U.S. coastline in a year is much higher.
In 1990, less than 4 percent of the total
U.S. coastline (Ref. 13 and CMC) was
included in the cleanup. The number of
ring carriers discarded in the marine
environment is impossible to estimate,
but is likely to be substantially greater
than the 35,000 collected in 1990.
Entanglement of wildlife in ring
carriers or other debris can cause
strangulation, drowning, reduced ability
to obtain food, increased difficulty in
escaping predators, wounds and
associated infections, and altered
behavior patterns. Specific
documentation of wildlife entanglement
in ring carriers is scarce. In a CMC
survey of the 30 states that border an
ocean or the Great Lakes, Instate
1 environmental agencies specifically
listed wildlife entanglement in ring
carriers as a problem when asked if.
plastic debris posed any environmental
hazards in their state.
TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF RING CARRIERS FOUND (BY STATE) IN THE NATIONAL BEACH CLEANUPS OF 1988,1989,
AND 1990
State
Alabama . _ _ .. . "
Alaska*
California* ...... .
Connecticut* .
Delaware* „ .
Florida ' '
Georgia ...
Hawaii- -
Louisiana* „• „ „
MaSno* _ . - • ' ~"'v
Maryland .„_ «„„..._...._._„_„. .„
Massachusetts*
MissJssfcol _ „ _ - ' . .
New Hampshire _- • . .
Now Jersey* __ '
New York* _ _.. •
North Carolina .....__... .__
Oregon* „ ,. ,.
Panrerytvarte „ „
Puerto Rico . — . _ _ _ „
Rhoda Wand* „.„ - ....
South CafoBna „
Texas .............. ..„_
Wgir»ifl ., , , ,
VTrpaiblands ...,.....,
Washington , ™ . •
1988
414
991
977
15
*idfi
8 104
909
9 **9f)
1 *>At\
375
89
ffTA
1 1fi4
i<9f\
tiRA
1 1QO
*%1A
1'fi
oyc
887
•Mfl
tft*TtQ
1AQ
2?dfi
356
1989
COO
15ft
Q. xnc
1*5ft
fim
81AK
U"
9 *K9
1 noo
498
91
1 OAA
oc
OCT
enQ
1 (V?^
4XC
QR£
11 AHA
•ICO
Aft
215
1990
ccc
m
o Acn
077
fsr\A
C QA-3
CO
0 CCO
1 Q&9
4^1
fi*tt
QO
1 ROA
O AK7
Q1Q
9A7
A7fi
-------
18066
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 7, 1993 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF RING CARRIERS FOUND (BY STATE) IN THE NATIONAL BEACH CLEANUPS OF 1988,1989,
AND 1990—Continued
Total
State
••••"• :
1988
30,808
1989
35,090
1990
34,722
' Degradable ring rule legislation enacted by 1988 (Ref. 26).
In its 1987 study. Plastics in the
Ocean: More Than a Litter Problem,
CMC reported that ring carriers are one
of the two items most commonly
reported as the cause of entanglement
(the other was monofilament fishing
line). In addition, the national beach
cleanup campaigns found three birds
entangled in ring carriers in 1988; one
bird, one fish, and one crustacean
entangled in ring carriers in 1989; and
three gulls and ttuee fish entangled in
1990. There is no way to estimate the
number of entangled wildlife that do not
reach the areas of the beach involved in
the cleanup or that reach these areas on
a day other than the day of the cleanup.
These data reflect only one day a year
for only a small percentage of coastal
property.
Information developed by CMC
through interviewing state officials
indicates that the following types of
animals have been found entangled in
ring carriers: Canada geese, ducks, gulls,
osprey, pelicans (including endangered
brown pelicans), loons, herons, other
unspecified bird species, sea lions, sea
turtles, raccoons, crabs, and several
unspecified fish species. EPA has,
however, no data as to the frequency of
these events or whether the rate of this
problem is increasing or decreasing.
2. Environmental Concerns Related to
Degradable Ring Carriers
The majority of degradable plastics
are either biodegradable or
photodegradable. Very few plastics
incorporating other mechanisms of
degradability (e.g., hydrolytically
degradable plastics) have been offered
for widespread application, although
such plastics are currently used in a few
niche markets (e.g., degradable surgical
sutures, and water-dissolvable
packaging). Currently, a
photodegradable plastic is used to
produce all ring carriers. The use of a
biodegradable plastic for disposable
plastic products (including ring carriers)
has been called for in many states
concerned with plastic disposal (Ref.
15). Therefore, this section will present
information on the risks posed by both
photodegradable and biodegradable
plastics. '
a. Fragments. All ring carriers that
reach marine waters will eventually
degrade into fragments due to forces in
the marine environment. Degradable
ring carriers will reduce to fragments
much more rapidly than ring carriers
that are not designed to degrade. The
Agency is unable to analyzethe impact
of the fragments of degraded ring
carriers upon ingestion of debris by
marine species or other animals. EPA
found no field or experimental evidence
on the size distribution of such
fragments, nor could it find data
allowing it to determine whether such
fragments could resemble food to diving
birds. There has been no report to the
Agency of an ingestion problem due to
fragments of ring carriers. It is possible
that ingestion of ring carrier fragments
will occur, but EPA does not have data
that would support a conclusion that
this could pose a significant hazard to
marine wildlife. As the Agency
documented in its Report to Congress:
Methods to Manage and Control Plastic
Wastes (Ref. 17), pellets from the plastic
manufacturing process are ubiquitous in
the world's oceans; they are the most
common item of marine debris in most
harbor and nearshore environments that
have been studied, and have been found
in significant quantities hundreds of
miles from the nearest coast. In
comparison with this source of plastic
pellets in the marine environment, EPA
concludes that the potential incremental
impact of ring carrier fragments is small.
EPA also notes that key supporters of
both the House and Senate bills fully
expected that EPA would promulgate a
rule requiring the use of the
photodegradable E/CO ring carriers that
were just coming into widespread use in
the late 1980's. For example,
Representative Studds explained that:
[tjhis legislation addresses a visible
problem with a straightforward and-painless
solution by requiring the use of a
commercially available degradable plastic
ring that is not appreciably more expensive
than its npndegradable counterpart. It is a
constructive solution to an identified and
avoidable problem—and is, to my
knowledge, without opposition.
134 Cong. Rec. H9530 (daily ed., Oct. 4,
1988). See also 134 Cong. Rec. S16374
(daily ed., Oct. 14,1988) (remarks of
Senator Chaffee). In light of these
expectations, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to propose to require
degradable carriers in the absence of any
data indicating that degradable carriers
pose greater risks than nondegradable
ones.
Since no biodegradable carriers have
been developed, it is even more difficult
for EPA to compare the risks of
fragments from these carriers to the risks
of strangulation from nondegradable
carriers. Nevertheless, EPA believes that
the risks from fragments from
biodegradable carriers could be less
than tie risks from the current
photodegradable carriers, if the
fragments degrade at a more rapid rate
than photodegradable plastics.
The Agency requests comment on
these findings; specifically EPA requests
data on the siz;e distribution of
fragments of degraded ring carriers, and
any evidence that might relate to their
ingestion by and impact on marine
wildlife. In the absence of such data,
however, EPA does not intend to
conclude that the risks of ingesting
degraded fragments exceed the risks of
entanglement.
b. Degradation by-products. Many of
the degradable! plastics in use today are
made by modifying a plastic resin by
incorporating an additive that promotes
the breakdown of the plastic to a
commonly used resin. The degradable
plastic formulation should not be more
toxic than the nondegradable resin it is
made from unless the additive itself is
toxic. The breakdown products of
degradable plastics are the same for
nondegradablei plastics they are made
from with the exception of the
additives. For example, E/CO is made
from LDPE with carbon monoxide
added'to allow the formulation to
photodegrade. The breakdown products
for E/CO should be the same as for
LDPE with the exception of any impact
carbon monoxide might have.
c. Additives used in plastics. EPA is
aware that a number of the additives
used in plastic processing are, in a pure
and concentrated form, toxic; however,
it is relatively uncommon for additives
to be released from plastics to the
environment (Ref. 17) in significant
, quantities.
Among biodegradable plastics, EPA is
aware of no evidence to suggest that
additives promoting degradation may
pose an environmental hazard (Ref. 17).
Starch is the most common degradable
additive in current biodegradable
plastics (Ref. 17). To date, no
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 65 11 Wednesday April 7, 1993 / Proposed Rules 13QS7
manufacturer has produced a ring
carrier from a biodegradable plastic
(Refs. 4 through 6); therefore, no
information exists regarding potential
additives that might be incorporated
into future biodegradable ring carriers.
In the absence of any information on
materials that may be used to make
biodegradable ring carriers, EPA cannot
conclude that a potential threat to the
environment exists from the release of
toxic additives from biodegradable ring
carriers.
The E/CO copolymer is made
degradable by incorporation of carbon
monoxide (CO) into the polymer chain.
Carbon monoxide makes up one percent
of the plastic. Degradation of E/CO may
proceed by one of two photochemical
reactions. In the predominant reaction,
responsible for approximately 90
percent of polymer chain scissions at
ambient temperatures, CO is not
released upon degradation; it remains
incorporated in the plastic fragments.
CO is released into the environment
only by the second photochemical
reaction (Ref. 7). therefore, for any ring
carrier, no more than 10 percent of the
CO will be released which is only 0.1
percent, by weight, of the entire ring
carrier. In addition, only the ring
carriers that photodegrade (i.e., littered
rather than landfilled or incinerated)
will release CO. The Agency is unable
to estimate the number of ring carriers
that are improperly disposed of each
year and, therefore, cannot precisely
estimate the amount of CO released
annually into the environment.
However, the Agency does not believe
that the amount of CO released poses a
significant risk to human health or the
environment.
Carbon monoxide is the only additive
incorporated into the E/CO copolymer
currently used in the manufacture of all
degradable ring carriers. Preliminary
toxicity data provided by ITW (Ref. 18)
as well as by the EPA-funded study (Ref.
16), indicate that the degraded plastic
and extractives are without observable
toxicity.
It is possible that future plastic ring
carriers may contain chemicals that
cause adverse impacts on the
environment. EPA encourages
processors of all plastics proposed for
use in ring carriers to conduct thorough
testing and analysis of the additives as
well as the complete formulation, to
ensure that they will not pose a hazard
as they degrade. If EPA determined that
a new degradable plastic was likely to
have adverse impacts, and that these
impacts presented a greater threat than
nondegradable carriers, it could propose
to prohibit its use under Pub. L. 100-
556. Citizens that obtain information
suggesting that a degradable ring carrier
would pose a greater threat to the
environment man nondegradable ring
carriers could submit that information
to EPA and request it to investigate.
IV. Approach to This Proposed Ring
Carrier Standards
Public Law 100-556 requires ring
carriers to be processed from a material
that, in addition to performing its
intended function of carrying beverages,
degrades quickly and does not pose a
threat to the environment. In addition to
these requirements, the Agency
identified two additional goals for this
regulation.
First, the Agency does not want to
create barriers to the development of '
new technology. As discussed in section
V, the Agency has chosen to propose a
degradability performance standard for
ring carriers rather than specify a
particular type of degradable plastic.
This performance standard will allow
the processors of ring carriers the
flexibility needed to use new technology
that degrades differently than the
current degradable technology. A plastic,
that biodegrades completely (i.e., all
products of degradation are assimilated
into the environment) would be
preferable to the current technology
which degrades into smaller pieces of
plastic. The Agency intends to avoid
placing barriers in the way of new
functioning as a ring carrier.
Second, the Agency does not intend
to interfere with local, state, or other
federal programs pertaining to the
regulation of degradable plastics as long
as the goals of the statute are preserved.
Over half of the states have enacted
legislation requiring the use of
degradable ring carriers. State
requirements (Ref. 26) vary widely in
time frames for degradation, definitions
of plastic articles covered, testing
requirements, and degradation
processes. Given that Congress did not
provide enforcement authority for this
rule (as discussed in detail in Section
VI), EPA does not believe Congress
intended this rule to preempt more
stringent state and local regulations.
V. Major Issues
regulation, for example, establishes a
performance standard to determine
degradability for beverage ring carriers.
This standard is not necessarily relevant
to degradable plastics intended for other
end uses.
As discussed in section two of the
preamble, definitions of the terms
"photodegradable," and
"biodegradable" as applied to plastics
are currently the subject of debate
among the technical,'commercial and
regulatory communities. The Agency
has chosen not to define the terms but
rather to require that any materials used •
to make ring carriers meet a
performance standard that reflects the
intent of the statute. The use of a
performance standard is intended to
allow regulatory flexibility for the
changing technology of the degradable
plastic field and to prevent barriers to
new technology.
B. Physical Endpointfor Degradation
The rate and extent of degradation are
typically.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.
The Agency is proposing "percent •
elongation at break" to measure
degradation. The ring carrier design
requires the plastic to be elastic enough
to stretch over the cans and then return
to the original diameter and grasp the
cans. If the plastic loses its elasticity,
ill fall out of the carrier.
A. Definition of Degradable
At the present time, no clear
consensus exists on a definition for
degradable plastics. Because of the
several mechanisms of degradability,
and the variety of products degradable
plastics could be used for, it is unlikely
that a single definition of degradability
will ever be applicable for all
degradable plastics. Today's proposed
the cans will iv
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.
"Elongation at break" is accepted by the
scientific community as an appropriate
method for measuring brittleness, and
therefore, degradation of plastics. .
Plastic that has degraded to the point
of 5 percent elongation at break means
it 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
-------
18068
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 7, 1993 / Proposed Rules
plastic breaks. At one hundred percent
derogation at break, ring carriers lose
their ability to function and the cans fall
out of the carriers (Ref. 11).
Ring carriers degraded past the point
of being able to hold beverage cans
probably poise little threat to marine
wildlife. Unfortunately, there is no
>recise way to select a level of
irittleness that is safe for all marine
species because of the difference in
strength between marine species. The
statute requires the Agency to choose a
iine period for degradation that allows
ring carriers to continue to function
iffectively as beverage holders.
A law enacted in Massachusetts
specified degradation to the point of 20
•ercent elongation at break as sufficient
o protect wildlife. Before 5 percent
elongation at break is reached, ring
larriers should pose little threat of
mtanglement to fish and wildlife.
Measuring brittleness below 5 percent is
npracticable because at lower values
plastic is too fragile to load into the
est equipment. Industry and the
cientific community commonly use 5
mrcent elongation at break as the
>hysical endpoint for the measurement
if degradability in plastic material. The
Agency is proposing that all ring
arriers be able to degrade to the
ndpoint of 5 percent elongation at
ireak. EPA requests comment on
whether 5 percent is too strict an
ndpoint and whether 20 percent or
ome other number would be more
>propriate.
'. Time Limit for Degradation
The Agency is required by the statute
establish a time limit for degradation
lat is, "the shortest period of time
onsistent with the intended use of the
em and the physical integrity required
>r such use." Although it would be
eal to set a time limit that is not
xpected to pose any risk to marine
Wildlife, it is likely that some risk to
arine wildlife will remain because it is
ot technically possible to design a ring
rrier that degrades immediately upon .
sposal in a marine environment, but is
so strong enough for its intended use
olding beverages). Therefore, the
;ency has chosen a time limit for
gradation that is based on the best
rformance observed-in actual testing
the E/CQ ring carriers currently in
e. The time degradable ring carriers
quire to degrade is a fraction of the
16 nondegradable ring carriers were
timated to remain intact; therefore, the
k from degradable ring carriers will
much less than the risk posed by
ndegradable ring carriers.'
The Agency investigated whether or
t the material currently being used to
make ring carriers, E/CO, degrades
under marine conditions. E/CO clearly
degrades when exposed to sunlight on
land; Most E/CO exposure studies have
focused on terrestrial rather than marine
exposure.
Limited data is available on the rate
of degradation of E/CO under marine
conditions (Refs. 16, and 19 through 22).
In a study 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 month of July, off the
coast of Miami, Florida. Miami, in July,
receives one of the highest average
amounts of UV absorption in the
country, therefore is an optimal
environment for degradation of either
biodegradable or photodegradable ring
carriers. A timeframe of 35 days is
carrier can photodegrade in a marine
environment. Ring carriers made from
LDPE, but without carbon monoxide
added, were also tested in Miami and
after 59 days were degraded to only
158.2 percent elongation at break. This
study also tested ring carriers off the
coast of Seattle, Washington, during this
same time period. After 94 days, E/CO
ring carriers had degraded to 14.5
percent elongation at break. After 101
days, the LDPE ring carriers had not
degraded significantly (676.5 percent as
compared to an initial unexposed value
of 759.9 percent). E/CO ring carriers will
degrade more slowly in areas of the
country that receive less UV than Miami
and also degrade more slowly during
winter months than during summer
months. Nonetheless, the E/CO ring
carriers degrade more quickly than
LDPE ring carriers under all
environmental settings that include
some sunlight
Based on these data, it is the Agency's
conclusion that 35 days of exposure to
sunlight in Miami in the summer is the
shortest time to achieve 5 percent
elongation at break. Ring carriers
discarded in marine environments other
than Miami and similar environments,
during seasons other than summer, take
longer to degrade. Based on these
considerations the proposed rule
establishes a time period of 35 days
during June and July in a location below
the latitude 26 degrees North in
continental United States waters. The
Agency requests comments on the 35
day time limit under the above
conditions—specifically whether it
provides enough protection for
entangled wildlife and whether the time
period for degradation is feasible for
current ring technology.
EPA does not intend to require in situ
testing. The testing am be done under
laboratory conditions as long as the
exposure conditions iire equivalent to
the standard above. For
photodegradable ring carriers, the most
important exposure condition is UV.
Based on modeling duta, this 35 day
time period in Miami averages about
10,000 kilojqules of UV (Ref. 27). This
converts to approximately 250 light
hours in the photodejpradation exposure
apparatus described in the ASTM test,
D-5208 "Standard Practice for
Operating Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV)
and Condensation Apparatus for
Exposure of Photodegradable Plastics."
EPA believes, based on industry data
(Ref. 11) that this test run on Cycle A
for no more than 250 llight hours is
equivalent to 35 days under marine
conditions in a location below the
latitude 26 degrees North. ASTM test G-
26, "Practice for Operating Light-
Exposure Apparatus (Xenon-Arc Type)
With and Without Water for Exposure of
Nonmetallic Materials," is a second
method that can be ussd to expose
plastics to UV. EPA data (Ref. 16) using
this procedure to degrade E/CO
indicates that the ring carrier reaches 5
percent elongation at break within 200
hours. EPA believes this test (see
reference 16 for test conditions) is
equivalent to 35 days under marine
conditions in a location below the
latitude 26 degrees North in continental
United States waters.
EPA realizes that a ring carrier that
degrades in 35 days in Miami will take
longer to degrade in other parts of the
country. E/CO ring carriers lose their
ability to function after a few days when
exposed to full sunlight (for example if
the beverage cans are displayed outside)
in southern climates, during the
summer (Ref. 11). It will take longer for
a ring carrier .to degrade in the same
climate during winter (seasonal
variation of UV is greater than
geographic). Any regulation requiring a
shorter timeframe during the entire year
or the same time limit in a more
northern area of the country will not
allow the E/CO ring earner to function
nationwide. EPA does not intend
processors of ring carriers to make
different ring carriers for use during
different seasons of the year. EPA
requests comment on the structure of
this requirement; speciiically, if a time
limit expressed as 10,000 kilojoules of
UV, 250 light hours under ASTM D-
5208, or 200 hours using ASTM G-26
are equivalent to 35 days in a location
below the latitude 26 degrees North in
continental United States waters. EPA
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 7, 1993 / Proposed Rules 18069
also i
or all of these values in the rule.
D. Environmental Conditions for
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 the same rate as
the nondegradable formula of that
plastic because there is no source of
light to degrade the plastic. A
degradable plastic must be tested under
the environmental conditions in which
the product will be disposed. The
Statute directs the Agency to protect
marine wildlife.
The quantity and wavelength of
ultraviolet (UV) light a photodegradable
plastic is exposed to are the most
significant factors controlling the rate of
photodegradation. Biodegradation in
comparison to photodegradation is a
much more complex process and any
test to measure the rate of degradation
would have to control more variables.
Variables that impact the rate of '
biodegradation in a marine environment
include: the microbial population, water
quality/chemistry, temperature, amount
of UV, and wave action. Biodegradable
carriers would have difficulty meeting a
standard based only on the amount and
spectra of light.
The Agency explored several options
for regulatory requirements that reflect
"marine conditions":
1. Establish a laboratory test imposing
specific limits on all the variables listed
photodegradation.
2. Establish a test for photodegradable
plastic limiting UV and temperature.
3. Require in situ testing, i.e., ring
carriers would be tested in a marine
sotting (as a opposed to a laboratory test
simulating marine conditions). The
important factors determining
degradation for an in situ test are the
latitude of the test site and season
during testing.
4. Require ring carriers to meet a
performance standard for degradability
under certain environmental conditions
without specifying the test method that
must be used.
Option 1 would require the Agency to
establish limits under which ring
carriers would biodegrade. The Agency
would define the species of micro- and
macroorganisms and the agitation of the
seawater. At this time, the Agency does
not have enough information to define
precisely conditions for these" processes.
The American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) and other groups are
working on tests which might be
appropriate to test biodegradable
plastics in a laboratory setting. The
Agency requests comment on this
option and information on the processes
described above.
For option 2, the Agency would
define the two most important variables
for photodegradables, temperature and
light, and then allow the processor to
test the ring carriers in a laboratory
setting. ASTM has standards for testing
photodegradable plastics which define
these variables. ASTM test D-5208 and
G-26 are designed to mimic UV
exposure under laboratory conditions
and D-3826 to measure elongation at
break for plastics. These tests are
accepted by the academic as well as the
industrial community for simulating ~
weathering conditions for
photodegradable plastics. This option
would be adequate to test the ring
carriers presently used, but it would
limit new technology that degrades by
any means other than
photodegradadation (e.g.,
biodegradation). Such a limitation
would not meet the Agency's goal of
providing flexibility for new
technologies, as described earlier. The
Agency requests comment on this
option, specifically whether it should be
included in the rule language as a
requirement for photodegradable ring
carriers.
Option 3 would require the processor
to test in situ. The processor would
anchor several ring carriers in a marine
environment (ring carriers float until
. weighted with growth of algae and
crustaceans) and test the samples to
determine if they have degraded to the
point of 5 percent elongation at break.
There is no accepted test for exposure
of biodegradable plastics in marine
environments (either simulated in a lab
or testing in situ). The Agency
considered the following elements for
an in situ test:
a. Season and location. The rate of
biodegradation is most strongly
influenced by the environmental
conditions of the location for testing; the
season (which determines temperature
and sunlight) and biology in which an
in situ test is performed will determine
the degradation rate. The Agency
explored the option of denning a
specific month and geographic latitude
so that the test results would be
reproducible and comparable.
b. Environment. The Agency believes
that, if an in situ test were proposed,
certain restrictions should apply. The
Agency would require that samples be
exposed to a marine environment
within U.S. nearshore waters; allowing
testing in United States territories such
as the United States Virgin Islands
would favorably influence the test
results because of higher amounts of UV
and water temperature. Also prohibited
would be testing in any location, such
as sewage outfalls, that would favorably
influence test results.
c. Enclosure of Samples. The Agency "
would require samples to be enclosed in
a manner that allows free circulation of
water into the enclosure but does not
allow large fragments of ring carriers to'
leave the enclosure. The Agency
requests comment on the size of
screening necessary to retain fragments
large enough to prevent a risk to
wildlife.
An in situ test has the advantage of
being applicable for both biodegradable
and photodegradable plastics. A
disadvantage of this option, however, is
that the degradation rates will vary
greatly between in situ test runs (as
compared to a laboratory tests) because
of the environmental variables. A plastic
tested during a month which is
relatively cloudy will show a slower
rate than an equivalent plastic tested
during a sunny month. Comparison of
test results performed in different
locations; and/or during different time
periods would be very difficult even to
the extent that an otherwise degradable
plastic may fail the test due to climate
conditions.
EPA requests comment on the need
for an in situ test. EPA also requests
specific comment on the structure and
content of an in situ testing procedure.
If the comments on today's proposal
indicate that an in situ test is desirable,
an in situ test may be included in the
final rule.
Option 4 would allow the greatest
flexibility, and therefore EPA has
chosen to use this approach in this
proposal. Processors would design and
manufacture for use ring carriers to meet
a performance standard of degradability
under certain conditions. The processor
may choose a test to demonstrate
compliance of the ring carriers based on
the material used to manufacture the
ring carriers. Current ring carriers could
be tested using the ASTM
photodegradation test (option 2) or any
revisions of the ASTM tests. Processors
employing new technology could use an
in situ test (option 3). Processors would
not be required to submit test results to
the Agency.
The EPA is proposing three factors to
be included in the performance
standard: A physical endpoint for
degradation, a time limit for
degradation, and marine environmental
conditions. The first two factors have
been defined as 5 percent elongation at
break and 35 days under marine
conditions in a location below the
-------
18070
/ Vol. 58. No. 65 / Wednesday. April 7. 1993 /Proposed Rules
latitude 26 degrees North in continental
United States waters. The processor may
choose to define the-onvironmental
conditions for the test from many
different options so long as the
conditions reflect the marine
environment.
If a ring carrier processor wishes to
market photodegradable ring carriers,
the processor may test the ring carriers
using the ASTM procedures for testing
ind handling photodegradable plastics.
!f a processor chooses to market a ring
carrier which is biodegradable or is
iegradable by several processes
perhaps including photodegradation
and biodegradation in the process) the
jrocessor may use an in situ test of their
own design to measure degradability or
an established test (ASTM. is working on
i lab test for biodegradable plastics).
["he EPA requests comment on this
proposed structure of the rule,
specifically whether the ASTM
irocedures (D-5208. G-26, and I>-3826)
md an in situ test should be included
n the rule.
The exposure of photodegradable ring
arrlers should be equivalent to the
mount of exposure ring carriers receive
uring 35 days under marine conditions
n a location below the latitude 26
egrees North in continental United
tales waters.
T. Applicability and Compliance
Public Law 100-556 requires that EPA
ssue a rule providing that all ring
larriers intended for use in the United
tates must be made of degradable
naterial. EPA is proposing to apply this
ule both to processors in the United
tates and also to any person hi the
hited States importing ring carriers.
liis rule does not differentiate between
ng carriers processed for use in the
nited States and other countries
fccause, at the time of sale to beverage
«ttlerst the processor has no knowledge
•i to where the ring carriers will be sold
• used.
The proposed rule would require each
ng processor and importer to
etennine that its ring carrier meets this
egradable performance standard before
arketing for use the ring carriers. The
jency does not necessarily intend for
nporters of ring carriers to test each
ripment of ring carriers to determine if
ey meet the performance standard.
nporters must not knowingly distribute
ng carriers that do not meet this
rformance standard and they should
>ek reassurance from the processors
at the ring carriers meet the
rformance standard. If more than one
ocessor manufactures ring carriers
sing the same ririg carrier material and
-ocessing conditions, then they do hot
each have to test their own ring carrier.
They may share the test data. However,
the processors should document this
agreement The processor also should
test the ring carrier each time the ring
carrier's formulation or processing
procedure changes substantially.
F. Recycling
Recycling of plastic.consumer
products is a growing industry. Many
communities have programs for plastics
recycling. There is a concern that if
degradable plastics are included in
recycled plastic stock the degradable
plastics may, because of their ability to
degrade, cause the recycled plastic
product to become brittle and fail.
The Agency does not believe
degradable ring carriers pose a threat to
plastics recycling. The quantity of ring
carriers compared to the total quantity
of plastic disposed of every year is very
small and, therefore, should have
,
relatively little effect (Ref. 16). If
photodegradable material is included in
a recycled product that is a dark color,
further degradation is not going to occur
because the dark pigments will block
UV penetration. Furthermore, there are
preliminary data that show that
inclusion of a small amount of
degradable plastic does not increase the
brittleness of recycled plastic (Ref. 16).
In addition, ITW is running a pilot
program to recycle E/CO ring carriers.
The ring carriers have been recycled
into ring carriers as well as into other
consumer products (Ref. 28).
VI. Enforcement and Effective Date
The Agency requests comment on
incentives for compliance with this rule.
The Agency suggests the processors of
ring carriers retain evidence of
compliance in the event that citizens
question the degradability claim. Public
Law 100-556 does not provide the
Agency with the authority to enforce
this rule. Furthermore, it is a free-
standing legislation that does not amend
RCRA. Consequently, EPA cannot use
the enforcementprovisionsin Section
3008 of RCRA. The Agency requests
comment on the need for compliance
incentives as well as specific
suggestions of compliance strategies.
The Agency is proposing that tnis rule
be effective six months after the date of
the promulgation of the final rule. The
Agency believes that the current ring
carrier technology meets the proposed
performance standard. The Agency
requests comment on this effective date
and whether processors will be able to
test any ring carriers currently in use
and comply with the proposed
performance standard within this
timeframe. Moreover, EPA believes that
the entire existing inventory of ring
carriers in the United States is made of
the E/CO polymer, so it does not need
to allow additional time for the use of
noncomplying inventory. EPA requests
comment on this rinding.
VII. Administrative IQesignation and
Regulatory Analysis
A. Executive Order 1,2291
Under Executive Order 12291, the
Agency must judge whether a regulation
is "major" and thus subject to the
requirement to prepare a regulatory
impact analysis. The proposed rule
published today is not major. It will not
result hi an effect on 'the economy of
$100 million or more, will not result in
significant increased costs or prices,
will not have significant adverse effects
on competition, employment,
investment, productMty and 'is
innovation, and will not disrupt
domestic export markets. This proposal
will have none of the above effects,
because the Agency finds the processors
are able to meet these standards without
changing current technology. Therefore
the Agency "has not prepared a
regulatory impact analysis under the
Executive Order. The Agency requests
comment on the potential costs of this
rulemaking. This proposed regulation
was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review as required by Executive Order
No. 12291.
B. 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.
The proposed rule will affect ring
carrier processor, 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 ot
materials. Therefore, in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 605(b). I hereby certify that this
rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant adverse economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities •
(as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act).
-------
Federal Eegiflter / Vol. 58, No. CS / Wednesday, Aprii 7, 199a / Proposed Rules 18071
C Paperwork Reduction Act
The Agency has determined that there
me no additional reporting, notification,
or racordkeeping provisions associated
\vith this proposed xnle. Such
v provisions, -were they included, would
be submitted for approval to the Office
of Management and Budget iOMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C.3501etseg.
(1) Narayan, Ramani. "Development of
Standards for Degradable Plastic* by ASTM
Subcommittee D-20.96 on Enviroamtntally
JJegradabla Plastics." 1992.
(2) U.S. Army. Biodegradable Polymer* for
Packaging. 1S92, •
(3) Federal Trade Commission. "'Guidelines
for the Use of Environmental Marketing
Claims." July 1992.
(4) Northam, Richard. Telephone
Communication between Eastern Research
Group end Richard 'Northam' of Duponfs
Products Planning Division. 1990.
(5) Shobur. Don. Telephone
Communication between Eastern Research
Group jand Don Shobur, the Market Director
for Union Carbide's E/CO sales. 1990.-
(6) Williams, Michael, L. Letter to Eastern
Research Group from Michael L. "Williams,
Market Manager for Dow's Plastics for
Packaging Industry Group. July 18, 1990. •
(7) Harlam. CM. and A. Nicholas.
"Degradable Ethylene-Carbon Monoxide
Copolymer," Proceedings of Symposium on
Degradable Plastics. The Society of the
Plastics Industry, Inc. Washington, DC. June
10.1987.
(8) Dunford. Richard "W^ Anthony L.
Andrady. and Laura J. Norwood. The
Economic Impacts of Requiring Rapidly •
Degradable Plastics in Selected Projects: A
Preliminary Analysis. Research Triangle
Institute. Research Triangle Park, NC. 1989.
(9) Cunningham, Ernest Telephone'
Communication between Eastern Research
Group and Ernest Cunningham of Grippac.
1990.
(10) Lynch. Michael. Telephone
Communication between Eastern Research •
Group and Michael Lynch of ITWs Hi-Cone
Division. 1990.
til) Samaras, Peter, L. Letter to EPA. for
TTW Hi-cone. August 31. 1992. . -
(12) Trager, Cara S. "Secondary Packaging:
Higher Multiples." Beverage World. June^
1989.
(13) National Oceanographic'and
Atmospheric Administration. "The
Coastlines of the United States." U. S.
Department of Commerce. 1975.
{14) Bilars, GJt "Impacts of Ocean Debris
on Marine Turtles: Entanglement and
Ingestion." Proceedings of the Workshop on
the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris, 27-29
November 1984. Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum. 19B5.
(15) PEI Associates, Inc. An Assessment of
the Current State of the Art of Bio/
Photodegradable Plastics, Contract No. 68-
03-3413. Work Assignment No. 2-46, PN
3741-46-2. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 1990.
(16) Research Triangle Institute.
'WedfeerabWiyOfEntanced-Degradftbla
Plastics." Gontrect No. 68-02-4544. US. .
, Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. 1992.
(17J U.S. EPA, OSW and OMEP. Report to
Congress on Methods to Manage end Control
Plastic Wastes. BPA/530-SW-89-O51. 1990.
(18) Mid-State Associates, tnc. Final Report
for the Chronic Toxicity Ratest Completed on
the ITW Hi-Cono MOM106&-B Degraded
Plastic Sample. Prepared for ITW Hi-Cone.
1990.
£19} Mirick, W. Final Report on Outdoor
Weathering of Packaging, Midwest and
Southeast Sites. Battelle, Columbus, OH.
Prepared for ITW Hi-Cone. 1990.
{20) Mirick, W. Final Report on Outdoor
Weathering of Packaging, Northwest and
Northeast Sites. Battelle, Columbus, OH.
Prepared for ITW Hi-Gone. 1990.
(21) Hill. Richard C and Xua Wang. An
Evaluation of Photodegradable Six-Pack
Carriers as Manufactured by ITW Hi-Cone.
University of Maine, Drono, ME. 1990.
(22) Pegram, Jan E. and Anthony L.
Andrady. •"Outdoor Weathering of Selected
Polymeric Materials Under Marine Exposure
Conditions." Polymer Degradation and
Stability. Vol. 26,1989.
(23) Andrady, Anthony L. Experimental
Demonstration of Controlled
Photodegradation of Relevant Plastic
Compositions Under Marine Environmental
Conditions, Final Report. RTI/374S/OO-01F.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA. 1988.
(24) Andrady, Anthony L. "Weathering of
Selected Degradable Plastic Materials Under
Outdoor and Laboratory Exposure
Conditions." Presented at the 17th Annual
Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. 1991.
{25) Andrady, Anthony L. "Outdoor and ,
Laboratory Weathering of Plastics
Formulated for Enhanced Degradabiliry."
Presented at the International Symposium of
Research Developments for Improving Solid
Waste Management, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 1991,
(26) Eastern Research Group. Current
Status of State Regulations Requiring
Degradable Ring Carriers. March 1992.
(27) Lennon,Mark. Modification and
Application of a Computer Model of
Ultraviolet Radiation to Support the
Degradable Ring Carrier Regulation.
(28) Boone, Edward }. ITW Hi-Cone 6 Pack
Carrier and 12 Pack Band Recycling Program.
Illinois Too! Works, Hasca, IL.
list of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 238
Beverage ring carrier, Biodegradation,
Degradable plastic, Degradability
standards, Photodegradation, Ring
carrier.
Dated: March 30.1993.
Carol Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended
by adding part 238 to road as follows:
PART 238—OEGRAOABLE PLASTIC
RING CARRIERS '
Subpart A-^-General Provisions
Sec.
238.10 Purpose and applicability.
238.20 Definitions.
Subpart B—Requirement*)
238.30 Requirement
Authority 42 U.S.C. 6914D-1.
Subpart A—General Provisions
S 238.10 PurpOM and applicability.
The purpose of this part is to require
that plastic ring carriers be made of
degradable materials as described in
§§ 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 5 238.20.
§238.30 iteflnhions.
For the purpose of this part;
5 percent Elongation at break means
the increase in length of the plastic
material caused by a tensile load. This
is 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 by the tensile load.
It is stretched (and simultaneously
measured) until the material breaks.
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% inches in diameter
which is made, used, or designed for the
purpose of packaging, transporting, or
carrying inultipackaged cans or bottles.
Subpart B—Requirements
§236.30 Requirement
(a) No processor shall manufacture
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 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 or equivalent
laboratory exposure conditions.
(b) -No person shall import ring
carriers in bulk unless they are designed
and manufactured to degrade to the
point of 5 percent elongation at break
when exposed for 35 days, during June
and July, to marine conditions in a
location below the latitude 26 degrees
North, in continental United States
-------
18072 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 65 / Wednesday. April 7. J993 / Proposed Rides
waters or equivalent laboratory
exposure conditions.
IFR Doc. 93-8129 Filed 4-6-93; 8:45 amj
BILUNQ CODE «660-50-f>
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION
49 CFR Part 1039
[Ex Parte No. 394 (Sub-No. 12}]
Petition To Exempt From Regulation
the Rail Transportation of Scrap Paper
AGENCY: interstate Commerce
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Commission is seeking
public comment on a proposal from the
Association of American Railroads
(AAR) to exempt from regulation the rail
transportation of scrap paper. If the
exemption proposed by AAR is adopted,
rates for the transportation of scrap
paper would be deregulated and would
not be subject to the evidentiary
requirements associated with the annual
compliance proceedings that govern
other recyclable commodities. The
proposal requested by AAR appears
below. We-also seek comments on an
alternate approach that would grant an
exemption from tariff and other filing
requirements while retaining the
maximum rate cap of section 10731(e)
as to increases in individual rates.
DATES: Any person interested in
participating in this proceeding as a
party of record by filing and receiving
written comments must file a notice of
intent to do so by April 19,1993. We
will issue a service list of the parties of
record shortly thereafter. Comments and
replies must be served on all parties on
the service list. Comments are due May
19,1993. Replies are due June 18,1993.
ADDRESSES: Send notices of intent to
participate and an original and 10
copies of pleadings referring to Ex Parte
No. 394 (Sub-No. 12} to: Office of the
Secretary, Case Control Branch,
Interstate Commerce Commission,
Washington. DC 20423.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maynard Dixon, 202-927-5293 or
Joseph Dettmar, 202-927-5660 (TDD for
hearing impaired: 202-927-5721).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice
published on September 9,1992 at 57
FR 41122-41123 in Ex Parte No. 394
(Sub-No. 10), Railroad Rates on
Recyclables—Exemptions, we proposed
to exempt movements of nonferrous
recyclable commodities whose rates are
found, in an annual compliance
proceeding for recyclables rates,1 to
recover revenues below the variable cost
of service. In the (Sub-No. 10)
proceeding, we stated that we would
entertain petitions to exempt
commodities such as scrap paper that
are recovering revenues "just above the
R/VC break even point."
By petition filed December 1,1992
and docketed as Ex Parte No. 394 (Sub-
No. 12), the Association of American
Railroads and nine class I railroads
(Petitioners) responded to our invitation
in the (Sub-No. 10) proceeding fay
requesting that the Commission exempt
railroad movements of scrap paper from
regulation under 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV.
The provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10505
authorize us to exempt services from
regulation where (1) regulation is not
necessary to carry out the rail
transportation policy of 49 U.S.C.
lOlOla and (2) the service is of limited
scope or regulation is not necessary to
protect shippers from abuse of market
power.
Petitioners present substantial
evidence that exemption of scrap paper
would meet the criteria of 49 U.S.C.
10505:
1. Petitioners attempt to demonstrate
that an exemption would not subject
shippers to abuse of market power.
Petitioners' witnesses present
information designed to show that
motor carriers mdve the great majority
of the traffic and that the motor carriers'
share has been increasing. Petitioners
also present information designed to
demonstrate the presence of substantial
intramodal, geographic, and product
competition. Petitioners testify that the
movements proposed for exemption
compete with exempt movements of
substitutes for scrap paper in boxcars
and that shippers are overwhelmingly
satisfied with the boxcar exemption.
Petitioners also testify that an
exemption would enable railroads to
compete more effectively with motor
carriers by eliminating the delay and
expense of filing tariffs and complying
with the administrative requirements
connected with contracts executed
under section 10713.
2. As additional evidence of lack of
market dominance, petitioners
incorporate by reference testimony in Ex
Parte No. 394 (Sub-No. 9), Cost Ratio for
Recyclables—1992 Determination,
which shows that the railroads'
revenue/variable cost ratios for scrap
paper range from 0.95 to 1.12.
According to petitioners, this indicates
that the traffic produces little, if any, net
revenue and thus is subject to
significant competition.
< See 49 CFR part 1145.
3. Petitioners cite cases in which this
agency has found that exemptions of
similar or greater economic effect are of
"limited scope" under 49 U.S.C.
10505(a). We request comments on
whether an exemption for scrap paper
would satisfy section 10505.
In the (Sub-No. 10) proceeding, we
asked whether we have authority to
grant exemptions for commodities
subject to section 10731*8 rate cap for
recyclables. That question is at issue in
this rulemaking as wall. Accordingly,
we also seek comments on the efficacy
of a partial exemption which would
exempt the transportation of scrap paper
from tariff and other filing requirements
(including participation in annual
compliance proceedings) but would
continue to subject the transportation to
the maximum rate cap of section
10731(e). Such an approach may
accommodate the objectives of the
exemption provisions while preserving
a shipper's right to relief in the event
that an individual above-the-cap rate is
increased. In a conference on March 23,
1993, we voted to adopt a partial
exemption in the (Sub-No. 10)
proceeding. We request comments on
whether this approach would satisfy the
objectives of the proponents of the
exemption in this matter.
Finally, we seek comment on whether
the exemption should be granted for
transportation of all scrap paper covered
by the 5-digit Standard Transportation
Commodity Code (STCC) No. 40 241, or
whether it should be drawn more
narrowly. We note that 5-digil STCC
groups contain several commodities,
and if the exemption; is to focus on a
single 5-digit group, we might want to
ensure that there are no commodities in
the group with particrular characteristics
warranting regulation.
We preliminarily conclude that
implementation of tliis proposal would
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. No
new regulatory requirements are
imposed, directly or indirectly. The
purpose of the proposal is simply to
reduce regulation where it appears to be
unnecessary. The proposal should not
significantly change the rates paid by
shippers, large or small. The parties
most affected by the regulatory burdens
removed by this proposal are the larger
railroads.
This action will not significantly
affect either the quality of the human
environment or the conservation of
energy resources.
List of Subjects in 41) CFR Part 1039
Intermodal transportation,
Manufactured commodities, Railroads. •
Decided: March 30,1993,
-------
------- |