Degradable Plastic Ring Rule

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is issuing this final rule

in response to ``Degradable Plastic Ring Carriers'' (Pub. L. 100-556),

which in general provides that EPA shall require plastic ring carriers

(for beverage cans) be made of degradable material. The statute

requires that such ring carriers must be processed from a material

that, in addition to allowing the ring carrier to perform its intended

use, degrades quickly and does not pose a greater threat to the

environment than nondegradable materials.

The Agency has chosen to require ring carrier processors to test

their ring carriers using either a lab or an in situ test. The Agency

has chosen a degradability performance standard for ring carriers,

rather than specify a particular type of degradable plastic, to allow

the processors of ring carriers the flexibility to use new technology.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Part 238 is effective on September 1, 1994. The

incorporation by reference of American Society of Testing and Materials

standards adopted in this rule is approved by the Director of the

Federal Register as of September 1, 1994 in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a).

ADDRESSES: The public record for this rulemaking (docket number F-92-

DPRF-FFFFF) is located at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) Docket Information Center, (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The

public docket is located at EPA Headquarters and is available for

viewing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal

holidays. Appointments may be made by calling (202) 260-9327. Copies

cost $0.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the

RCRA/Superfund Hotline, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, (800) 424-

9346. In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810. For

information regarding specific aspects of this notice, contact Tracy

Bone, Office of Solid Waste (5306), USEPA, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC, 20460, telephone (202) 260-5649.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline

I. Authority

II. Background

A. Mechanisms of Degradation

B. Factors Affecting Degradation

C. State Laws

D. Other Programs and Investigations Concerning Degradable

Plastics

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

IV. Response to Comment

A. Definition of Terms

B. Testing Degradation

C. Measuring Degradation

D. Time Limit for Degradation

E. Preemption of State Regulations

V. Implementation and Summary of This Final Rule

VI. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

B. Executive Order 12875

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

VII. References

I. Authority

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating this rule

under the authority of sections 101, 102, and 103 of Public Law 100-556

(the ``Act'' or ``Statute''). Although this statute has been codified

in Subtitle B of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42

U.S.C.A. 6914b and 6914b-1), it does not amend RCRA. In section 101 of

this law, Congress found that: (1) Nondegradable plastic ring carrier

devices have been found in large quantities in the marine environment;

(2) fish and other wildlife have become entangled in such ring

carriers; (3) such ring carriers can remain intact in the marine

environment for decades, posing a threat to fish and other marine

wildlife; and (4) sixteen states (as of 1988) had enacted laws

requiring that ring carriers be made of degradable material in order to

reduce litter and protect fish and wildlife. (As of 1991, eleven

additional states have passed laws of this kind.)

As a result of these findings, Congress required EPA under section

103 of the Act to promulgate a rule that would require that plastic

ring carriers (as defined in section 102(1)) be made of ``naturally

degradable material which, when discarded, decomposes within a period

established by such regulation.'' 42 U.S.C. 6914b-1. The period to be

established under the rule for such decomposition or degradation is to

be ``the shortest period of time consistent with the intended use of

the item and the physical integrity required for such use.'' Id.

Section 102(2) of the Act defines ``naturally degradable material'' to

mean a ``material which, when discarded, will be reduced to

environmentally benign subunits under the action of normal

environmental forces, such as, among others, biological decomposition,

photodegradation, or hydrolysis.'' 42 U.S.C. 6914b(2). EPA, however,

may not require the use of a degradable ring carrier if it is not

``feasible'' or if the degradable ring carriers present greater threats

to the environment than nondegradable ring carriers. 42 U.S.C. 6914b-1.

II. Background

Concern about the disposal of plastic materials dates back to the

early 1970s. Degradable plastics were seen by some as a solution for

the problems of littering, landfill capacity, and wildlife entanglement

and were developed for agricultural uses (mulch film, seedling pots) as

well as medical applications (sutures, implants).

Renewed public concern over solid waste management and resource

conservation in the past few years has been met by a resurgence of

corporate and academic research into degradable plastics, and by the

commercialization of various products designed to degrade.

Specifically, there has been great interest in finding new degradable

plastics made from non-petroleum-derived materials.

A. Mechanisms of Degradation

Plastics are polymers (chemicals made of repeating subunits) most

often derived from petroleum. There are plastics derived from other

natural materials that have many of the same properties as petroleum-

derived plastics and have been used to make degradable products.

Starch, for example, is a naturally-derived plastic that may include

over 10,000 linked subunits. Lactic acid is used to make surgical

sutures that degrade within the body after the incision has healed.

Plastics degrade by a number of different physical and chemical

processes. In photodegradation, light causes physical changes that

cause the plastic to become brittle and crumble into small pieces.

Fragments may range in size from several centimeters in diameter to

invisible macromolecular particles. All ring carriers in use currently,

are made from low density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic and degrade in

this manner.

Plastics also may be designed to be completely broken down and

assimilated into the environment. These plastics differ from those that

undergo photodegradation in that chemical changes occur in the

structure of polymer molecules, and the ultimate products are different

from the original plastic. This chemical breakdown and alteration may

be caused by one of a number of processes, including chemical reactions

with natural compounds (e.g., dissolution by naturally-occurring acids)

and biological activity (e.g., biodegradation). Degradable plastics

also may be designed to combine degradation processes; they may break

down to smaller fragments due to photodegradation and then rely on

biodegradation to complete the process.

The Agency developed this rule based on data available for the

photodegradable petroleum-based plastic ethylene carbon monoxide (E/

CO), currently used for ring carriers. EPA discussed, in the proposal

(April 7, 1993, 58 FR 18062), new plastic technology that could be used

to make ring carriers. EPA does not, however, have specific information

or data from plastic technology (other than E/CO) that can be used to

process ring carriers. Despite the lack of information on new

technology, EPA does not intend to impose any barriers to potential

ring carrier products.

B. Factors Affecting Degradation

Two key factors affecting degradation are the time required for

degradation and the environment in which degradation takes place. Given

enough time or a harsh enough environment, all materials, including

plastics not designed to degrade, will degrade. A meaningful definition

of degradability must include a time limit that is appropriate for the

planned use of and the ultimate method of disposal for the specific

degradable product.

Environmental conditions also play a critical role in controlling

degradation. The rate of biodegradation is primarily determined by

temperature, moisture, and the presence of oxygen. For example,

biodegradation is very slow in municipal solid waste landfills since

these facilities are generally engineered to exclude water and air. In

desert environments, the absence of water retards biodegradation. In

northern climates, temperature is typically the factor that controls

biodegradation rates. The intensity and wavelengths of light are the

most important factors in determining the rate of photodegradation.

Light intensity and wavelength also play roles in some types of

biodegradation. Public Law 100-556 directs EPA to reduce the threat of

entanglement of marine fish and wildlife; therefore, EPA requires

degradation be tested under marine conditions (or equivalent laboratory

conditions).

C. State Laws

In 1977, the State of Vermont enacted the first law banning the use

of nondegradable ring carriers. By the end of 1991, 27 states had

passed legislation specifically prohibiting the sale of nondegradable

ring carriers. State legislation typically is written to prohibit the

sale of nondegradable ring carriers by retail stores. Most of these

states indicated that the primary purposes for adopting the legislation

were to promote litter reduction and to address wildlife entanglement

concerns. The states that have adopted legislation banning

nondegradable ring carriers, the dates the legislation took effect, the

time limit required for degradation under each state law, and allowable

mechanisms for degradation (as of 1992), are listed in reference 4.

D. Other Programs and Investigations Concerning Degradable Plastics

Reflecting the significant public and legislative interest in the

use of degradable plastics, a number of organizations have addressed

the issues related to degradable plastics in the past few years. These

organizations include EPA, the U.S. General Accounting Office, the

Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Department of Defense, and many

state governments. Except for EPA, ASTM, and the Department of Defense,

the organizations and states addressing degradable plastics issues

typically are focusing more on litter and landfill capacity problems

than on the risk to marine mammals or on degradation in the marine

environment.

The ASTM D-20 committee (Ref. 1) has developed standards for

testing degradable plastics under certain environmental conditions

(including photodegradation and composting). EPA is using two ASTM

tests (specifically D-5208-91 and D-3826-91) in this rule. These tests

are recommended by ASTM for testing photodegradable plastic film. ASTM

is working on a test to simulate and measure degradation under marine

conditions which could be used to test biodegradable ring carriers

under lab conditions. Because of statutory deadlines, EPA can not wait

for ASTM to approve that test; therefore, we have included in this rule

an in situ test that could be used for biodegradable ring carriers. EPA

may, at a future date, review this rule to consider the effect of any

new ASTM marine test.

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

On April 7, 1993 (58 FR 18062), EPA issued a proposal in response

to Public Law 100-556. The Agency proposed a degradability performance

standard for ring carriers rather than specify a particular type of

degradable plastic. The proposed performance standard included the same

three factors in this rule's in situ test: A physical endpoint for

degradation, a time limit for degradation, and marine environmental

conditions. In the proposal, EPA referred to these factors as the

performance standard.

The proposed performance standard required testing in very specific

marine conditions that would be more costly than the currently employed

lab tests. Therefore, the proposal also allowed a processor of

photodegradable ring carriers to use lab tests to check the degradation

of the ring carriers as long as the lab tests were equivalent to the

performance standard.

IV. Response to Comment

EPA received comments on the proposed rule from eighteen persons or

groups. This section summarizes and addresses the major comments. A

discussion of the remaining comments can be found in a background

document available in the RCRA Docket Information Center. See the

``ADDRESSES'' section at the beginning of this rule for information on

getting a copy of the document.

A. Definition of Terms

In the April 7, 1993 proposed rule, EPA proposed three definitions:

``5 percent elongation at break'', ``processor'' and ``ring carrier.''

EPA received no comments on the definitions for ``processor'', and

``ring carrier''; therefore, they remain unchanged in the final rule.

In response to one comment, EPA has changed the definition for

``elongation at break''. In the proposed rule, EPA defined ``5 percent

elongation at break'' as `` * * * computed by dividing the length, at

break, of the material before it is tested by the length of the

material, at break, after it is stretched * * * '' The commenter

pointed out that the proposed definition incorrectly divided the

original length of the plastic by the length after it has been

stretched. The definition found in the final rule language corrects

this error as well as defines the term to more closely resemble the

ASTM definition.

EPA received many comments on the proposed rule's usage of terms

describing degradability such as: Photodegradation, biodegradation,

naturally-derived plastics, and synthetic plastics. The Agency defined

and used these terms in the preamble only for the purpose of discussing

the issues surrounding degradable plastics; EPA does not use any of

these terms in the final rule language. Therefore, regulatory

definitions for those terms are not necessary.

EPA added the word ``plastic'' to the title of the regulation in

response to one comment. The commentor expressed concern that this rule

may be construed to apply to cardboard beverage carriers. EPA added

``plastic'' to the title to clarify the scope of this rule as set by

Congress in Public Law 100-556. The definitions and requirements of

today's regulation are not necessarily relevant to degradable plastics

intended for other end uses.

B. Testing Degradation

After the formulation of the resin, environmental conditions are

the most important factors for determining the rate of degradation. For

example, a photodegradable plastic buried in a landfill will degrade at

essentially the same rate as the nondegradable formula of that plastic

because there is no source of light to degrade the plastic. The Statute

directs the Agency to protect marine wildlife. To achieve this goal,

the Agency proposed that ring carriers be tested for degradability by

being exposed, ``for 35 days, during June and July, to marine

conditions in a location below the latitude 26 degrees North, in

continental United States waters.'' The Agency proposed that the amount

of degradation could then be tested and measured, using ASTM D-3826-91,

to show 5 percent elongation at break. In addition to the in situ test

described above, the proposal also allowed processors of

photodegradable ring carriers to use lab tests to check the degradation

of the ring carriers (rather than a location below latitude 26 degrees

North) as long as the lab tests were equivalent to the in situ test. In

the preamble to the proposal EPA stated that, for the purpose of

testing a photodegradable ring carrier, a lab test following the ASTM

test D-5208-91 (using cycle A conditions for 250 light hours) is

equivalent to the in situ test and could be used by ring carrier

processors to meet the proposed regulation. EPA asked for comment on

the use of ASTM tests D-5208-91, D-3826-91 and G-26.

Several commenters felt that the ASTM tests for exposure to UV and

measurement of elongation at break (ASTM D-5208-91 and D-3826-91,

respectively) should be required in the rule language rather than

referred to in the preamble and urged that the in situ test (referred

to in the proposal as the performance standard) should be deleted. The

commenters felt that the in situ test was vague and not reproducible.

The ASTM tests were felt to be easily implemented and reliable.

In response to these comments, EPA decided to include the ASTM

tests in the final rule language as an option along with the in situ

test. EPA decided to not require the ASTM tests alone because of the

potential negative effects on future use of biodegradables or other new

technology. A purely biodegradable ring carrier (if one is developed)

could never pass these tests, which are based on UV absorption and

photodegradation rather than biodegradation. As a result, the final

rule provides that the processor of a ring carrier may choose either

the ASTM lab tests (ASTM D-5208-91 using cycle A conditions for 250

light hours and ASTM D-3826-91) or the in situ test (i.e., expose the

ring carrier for 35 days, during June and July, to marine conditions in

a location below the latitude 26 degrees North, in continental United

States waters to degrade the ring carrier material and then use D-3826-

91 to test for 5 percent elongation at break).

C. Measuring Degradation

The rate and extent of degradation typically are assessed by

measuring changes in the physical properties of a material. For

degradable plastics, a common method used to quantify the extent of

degradation is to assess the ``brittleness'' of the material by

measuring the amount of stress that must be applied before the plastic

breaks. Brittleness can be measured in many ways, including tensile

strength and the elongation of the plastic prior to breaking.

In the proposed rule, the Agency chose ``elongation at break'' to

measure degradation. There are data that show a close correlation

between the loss of elasticity (i.e., becomes brittle) and the rate of

degradation. Brittleness can be used to predict the loss of physical

integrity of the plastic which correlates to a reduced risk to wildlife

from entanglement.

Plastic that has degraded to the point of 5 percent elongation at

break will stretch only 5 percent of its original length before

crumbling. The LDPE resin used to make ring carriers stretches readily.

Ring carriers made from LDPE normally can be stretched to more than

several hundred percent of their original length before breaking. Once

the plastic material has been exposed to degrading factors, the

material becomes more brittle and no longer can stretch very much

before the plastic breaks. At approximately one hundred percent

elongation at break, ring carriers lose their ability to function and

the cans fall out of the carriers (Ref. 2).

``Elongation at break'' is accepted by many in the scientific

community as an appropriate method for measuring brittleness, and

therefore, degradation of degradable plastics. However, some commenters

interested in developing new ring carrier technology (for example, a

biodegradable plastic ring carrier) expressed concern that elongation

at break may not be appropriate for the new technology. Two commenters

suggested the use of respirometric tests (using the evolution of carbon

dioxide as a measure of biodegradation) for measuring degradation of

biodegradable plastics. Respirometric tests are extremely complicated

to design and run; in order to measure the carbon dioxide evolution,

the experiment must be run under very controlled laboratory conditions.

To EPA's knowledge, a respirometric test that reflects the marine

environment has not been developed. None of these commenters provided

specific suggestions or data on how EPA can measure degradation of

materials other than photodegradable plastics. Therefore, EPA has

decided to leave the measurement of elongation at break in the final

regulation, but has included the in situ test as an option for any new

technology that may be developed.

D. Time Limit for Degradation

The Agency is required by the statute to establish a time limit for

degradation that is ``the shortest period of time consistent with the

intended use of the item and the physical integrity required for such

use.'' Although it would be ideal to set a time limit that is not

expected to pose any risk to marine wildlife, it is likely that some

risk to marine wildlife will remain because it is not technically

possible to design a ring carrier that degrades immediately upon

disposal in a marine environment, but also is strong enough for its

intended use (holding beverages).

The Agency investigated whether or not the material currently being

used to make ring carriers, E/CO, degrades under marine conditions. EPA

requested, but did not receive, any information to suggest that a

faster time than measured in the EPA study (Ref. 3) could be achieved

by E/CO or any other plastic product (that can also function as a ring

carrier). E/CO clearly degrades when exposed to sunlight. Therefore,

the Agency has chosen a time limit for degradation that is based on the

best performance observed in actual testing of the E/CO ring carriers

currently in use. In a study (Ref. 3) performed by Research Triangle

Institute for EPA, it took 35 days for E/CO ring carriers to reach 5

percent elongation at break in the marine environment. The testing was

done during the months of June and July, off the coast of Miami,

Florida. The time degradable ring carriers require to degrade is a

fraction of the time nondegradable ring carriers were estimated to

remain intact; therefore, the risk to marine species from degradable

ring carriers will be much less than the risk posed by nondegradable

ring carriers.

Some commenters felt that E/CO could not meet the requirement

within the proposed time period. However, EPA has data to the contrary

which is included in the docket to this rule (Ref. 3). Moreover, an E/

CO processor commented that they believed E/CO could meet the proposed

lab tests.

Several commenters were concerned that the performance standard

would inhibit the development of new technology. Commenters also felt

that EPA should allow a longer timeframe for biodegradable ring

carriers to degrade than for photodegradables because of their greater

environmental desirability. EPA disagrees. Although EPA understands the

environmental advantages of a biodegradable carrier, the Agency

believes that any biodegradable ring carrier must degrade as quickly as

E/CO so as to meet the statute's goal of protection of marine fish and

wildlife.

Commenters noted that states may misunderstand that the 35 day time

limit hinges on testing in a warm and sunny environment. They feared

that states other than Florida might require the 35 day timeframe. EPA

realizes that a ring carrier that degrades in 35 days in Miami will

take longer to degrade in other parts of the country. It will also take

longer for a ring carrier to degrade in Miami during winter than during

the summer months (seasonal variation of UV is greater than geographic

variation).

By establishing the in situ test in Sec. 238.30(a), the Agency does

not intend to require that a ring carrier degrade to 5 percent

elongation at break in 35 days in coastal waters everywhere in the

United States. For example, this rule is not requiring a ring carrier

be processed so that it degrades within 35 days in northern coastal

waters (e.g., Maine). Such a ring carrier may not be able to be

marketed nationally because it may degrade too quickly in the south

during the summer and, therefore, would not be able to perform its

intended function. Therefore, the Agency wishes to emphasize that the

in-situ test is 35 days in marine conditions in a location below the

latitude 26 degrees North, not 35 days in any coastal water in the

continental United States.

E. Preemption of State Regulations

Over half of the states have enacted legislation requiring the use

of degradable ring carriers. State requirements (Ref. 4) vary widely in

timeframes for degradation, definitions of plastic articles covered,

testing requirements, and degradation processes. EPA received four

comments requesting that this rule preempt State regulations concerning

the degradability of plastic ring carriers. Commenters expressed

concern that the various state standards could force the processors and

distributors of ring carriers to use more than one type of ring carrier

rather than the one ring carrier currently used nationally.

EPA understands this concern and, in principle, agrees that one

degradable ring carrier should provide adequate protection for fish and

wildlife nationwide. However, Congress did not provide authority for

this rule to preempt state regulation of degradable ring carriers. Nor

does EPA believe Congress intended this rule to preempt more stringent

state and local regulations.

The Agency does not intend to interfere with local, state, or other

federal programs pertaining to the regulation of degradable plastics.

V. Implementation and Summary of This Final Rule

In summary, today's Final Rule requires that manufacturers and

importers of plastic ring carriers test their ring carriers to ensure

that they degrade. The processor of a ring carrier may choose either

the ASTM lab tests (ASTM D-5208-91, using cycle A conditions for 250

light hours, and D-3826-91) or the in situ test (expose for 35 days,

during June and July, to marine conditions in a location below the

latitude 26 degrees North, in continental United States waters and

then, using D-3826-91, test for 5 percent elongation at break).

This rule applies to both processors in the United States and also

to any person in the United States importing ring carriers. This rule

does not differentiate between ring carriers processed for use in the

United States and other countries because, at the time of sale to

beverage bottlers, the processor has no knowledge as to where the ring

carriers will be sold or used.

Each ring processor and importer must determine that its ring

carrier meets this degradable performance standard using either of the

tests described in today's rule, before marketing for use the ring

carriers. The Agency does not intend for processors and importers of

ring carriers to test each shipment of ring carriers to determine if

they meet the performance standard; rather they should test the ring

carrier each time the ring carrier's formulation or processing

procedure changes substantially. Importers must not knowingly

distribute ring carriers that do not meet this performance standard and

they should seek assurance from the processors that the ring carriers

meet the performance standard. If more than one processor manufactures

ring carriers using the same ring carrier material and processing

conditions, then they do not each have to test their own ring carrier;

they may share the test data.

VI. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to the Office of Management and Budget review and

the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.''

It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is

therefore not subject to OMB review because the Agency believes the

processors are able to meet these standards without changing current

technology.

B. Executive Order 12875

Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership'', is intended to reduce imposition of unfunded federal

mandates on state, local and tribal governments. This rule does not

impose a mandate on these governments. The requirements of this rule

apply solely to the plastic processors of ring carriers and do not

compel any action by state, local or tribal governments.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.) requires an

agency to prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory

flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed or final

rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations,

and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility

analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will

not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

This rule will affect ring carrier processors, none of whom are

small entities. Small entities are not likely to enter into this market

because of the requirements for expensive application equipment and

quantities of materials. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

I hereby certify that this rule, as promulgated, will not have a

significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities (as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act).

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Agency has determined that there are no additional reporting,

notification, or recordkeeping provisions associated with this rule.

Such provisions, were they included, would be submitted for approval to

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

VII. References

(1) Narayan, Ramani. ``Development of Standards for Degradable

Plastics by ASTM Subcommittee D-20.96 on Environmentally Degradable

Plastics''. 1992.

(2) Samaras, Peter, L. Letter to EPA, for ITW Hi-cone. August

31, 1992.

(3) Research Triangle Institute. ``Weatherability of Enhanced-

Degradable Plastics.'' Contract No. 68-02-4544. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 1992.

(4) Eastern Research Group. Current Status of State Regulations

Requiring Degradable Ring Carriers. March 1992.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 238

Environmental protection, Beverage ring carrier, Biodegradation,

Degradable plastic, Degradability standards, Imports, Incorporation by

reference, Photodegradation, Ring carrier, Waste treatment and

disposal.

Dated: February 16, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the

Code of Federal Regulation is amended by adding part 238 consisting of

Secs. 238.10, 238.20 and 238.30 to read as follows:

PART 238--DEGRADABLE PLASTIC RING CARRIERS

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec.

238.10 Purpose and applicability.

238.20 Definitions.

Subpart B--Requirements

238.30 Requirement.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6914b-1.

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec. 238.10 Purpose and applicability.

The purpose of this part is to require that plastic ring carriers

be made of degradable materials as described in Secs. 238.20 and

238.30. The requirements of this part apply to all processors and

importers of plastic ring carriers in the United States as defined in

Sec. 238.20.

Sec. 238.20 Definitions.

For the purpose of this part:

Percent elongation at break means the percent increase in length of

the plastic material caused by a tensile load. Percent elongation at

break shall be calculated by dividing the extension at the moment of

rupture of the specimen by the initial gage length of the specimen and

multiplying by 100.

Processor means the persons or entities that produce ring carriers

ready for use as beverage carriers.

Ring carrier means any plastic ring carrier device that contains at

least one hole greater than 1\3/4\ inches in diameter which is made,

used, or designed for the purpose of packaging, transporting, or

carrying multipackaged cans or bottles.

Subpart B--Requirement

Sec. 238.30 Requirement.

(a) No processor or person shall manufacture or import, in bulk,

ring carriers intended for use in the United States unless they are

designed and manufactured so that the ring carriers degrade to the

point of 5 percent elongation at break, when tested in accordance with

ASTM D-3826-91, ``Standard Practice for Determining Degradation End

Point in Degradable Polyolefins Using a Tensile Test'', after the ring

carrier is exposed to, either:

(1) 250 light-hours of UV in accordance with ASTM D-5208-91,''

Standard Practice for Operating Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV) and

Condensation Apparatus for Exposure of Photodegradable Plastics'',

using cycle A; or

(2) 35 days, during June and July, to marine conditions in a

location below the latitude 26 degrees North, in continental United

States waters.

(b) The incorporation by reference of ASTM D-3826-91, ``Standard

Practice for Determining Degradation End Point in Degradable

Polyolefins Using a Tensile Test'', and ASTM D-5208-91, ``Standard

Practice for Operating Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV) and Condensation

Apparatus for Exposure of Photodegradable Plastics,'' was approved by

the director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available from the American Society of

Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Copies

may be inspected at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Docket Information Center, (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 or at the Office

of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC. These materials are incorporated as they exist on the

date of the approval and notice of any change in these materials will

be published in the Federal Register.

[FR Doc. 94-4369 Filed 2-28-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P