Tuesday
March 1, 1994
Part Hi
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 238
Degradable Plastic Ring Carriers; Rule
i
-------
9866 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No.'40 ./ Tuesday, March 1, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 238
[EPA/OSW-FR-83-OPRF-FFFFF; FRL- "
4842-2]
R1N2050-AD09
DegradabJe 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)
bo made of degradable material. The
statute requires that such ring carriers
must bo 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 tho environment than
nondegradabla 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 ofdegradable 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 tho Federal Register as of September
1,1994 In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
S52(a).
ADDRESSES: The public record for this
rulemaJdng (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, 401M 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, 401M 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, 401M 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'Stafe Laws'
D. Other Programs and Investigations '
Concerning Degradable Plastics -
ID. Summary of the Proposed Rule :
IV. Response to Comment
A. Definition of Terms
B. Testing Degradation
x .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
Res/-—rce 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
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 ofdegradable
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-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 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-l.
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
-------
"Federal Register 7 Vol. 59, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
9867
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 ' -.
photpdegradable petroleum-based '
plastic ethylene carbon monoxide (E/ "
CO), currently Used for ring carriers."
EPA discussed, in the proposal (April 7,
1993, 58 FR18062), 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 197.7, 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 Utter 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 testr 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
-------
9868 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 40 / Tuesday. March 1, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
describing degradability such as:
Photodegradation. biodegradation,
naturally-derived plastics, and synthetic
plastics. The Agency defined and used
theso tcnns 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
era 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
degrodable plastics intended for other
end uses.
B. Testing Degradation
After tho formulation of the resin.
environmental conditions are the most
Important factors for determining the
rate of degradation. For example, a
pholodegradable plastic buried in a
landfill will degrade at essentially the
same rate as the nondegradablo formula
of that plastic because there is no source
of light to degrade the plastic. The
Statute directs the Agency to protect
marine \vildlife. 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 tho 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 S 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 tho purpose of testing a
photodegradable ring carrier, a Jab 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 bo used by ring carrier
processors to meet the proposed
regulation. EPA asked for comment on
the use of ASTM tests B-5208-91, D-
382B-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 hi 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" tp 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,
-------
federal 'Register / Vol. 59, No. 40 I Tuesday, March "i, 1994 / Rules and Regulations'
9869
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
Teach 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 earners 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 timefra'me
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
§ 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 ihein-situ testis 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 arid 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
-------
9070 Federal Register / -Vol. .59, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 1, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
I0UIAMJ *#w* feA«4t*k* UAW A U*U ¥» A1A A4UL JJLC1VC
rtgnificant economic impact on a
.ubstantial number of small entities.
intended to reduce imposition of • , -
unfunded federal mandates on state,
local and tribal governments. This rule
docs 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
Tlio 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
Sroposcd or final rule on small entities
,o., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of an
egoncy certifies the rule will not have
sis
nut:
This rule will affect ring carrier
processors, none of whom are small
entitles. Small entities are not likely to
rater into this market because of the
requirements for expensive application
equipment and quantities of materials.
Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
005(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).
£>< Papenmrk Reduction Act
The.
or rocordkceping 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, Ramanl. "Development of
Standard* for Dcgradabla Plastics by ASTM
Subcommittee D-20.9G on Environmentally
Degradable Plastics", 1992. •
(2) Samaras. Peter. L. Letter to EPA, for
ITVV Hl-cone. August 31.1992.
(3) Research Triangle Institute.
"WeatherablHty of Enhanced-Degradable
Plastics." Contract No. 08-02-4544. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati. OH. 1992.
3 Agency has determined that there
3 additional reporting, notification,
; (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, Degradabifity 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 §§ 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-l.
Subpart A—General Provisions
§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
§§ 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 § 238.20.
§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% inches in diameter
which is made, used, or designed for the
purpose of packaging, transporting, or
carrying multipackaged cans or bottles.
Subpart B—Requirement
§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]
B1LUNO CODE 6S60-«W
------- |