MEMORANDUM

FROM: Richard LaShier, Workgroup Chair

TO: Rulemaking Docket

Date: July 18, 2013

Subject: Clarification of State Positions on Manifest Data Disclosure

There have been numerous surveys and data collections over several years, all aimed at identifying state 

practices respecting their management of Hazardous Waste Report and Hazardous Waste Manifest 

data. More recent surveys and questions have been asked more pointedly about states’ practices 

respecting the allowance, or not, of CBI claims with respect to manifests and manifest data collected by 

states that operate manifest tracking programs. This issue became prominent after the February 2008 

NODA requested comment on whether CBI claims should be allowed for either individual manifests or 

for aggregate collections/queries of manifest data. Because the previous surveys involved different 

points in time, and sometimes differing contexts (e.g., Site ID Questionnaire in 2004 vs. Manifest specific 

questions in 2007-08, comments on NODAs, workgroup input), and we have had to obtain clarification 

from some states about their previous responses , I believed it useful to develop this summary indicating 

our best assessment of where the various states align themselves on the issue of allowing CBI claims for 

manifests and manifest data.

1. Michigan’s January 2007 Survey of ASTSWMO Members

 These states indicated that manifest data would not or probably would not be treated as CBI 

under states’ public information laws:

o NY, OR, FL, MI, WA, CT, ID

 These states indicated that manifests could perhaps be treated as CBI until the claim is 

determined:

o Ohio, SC

2. Ohio EPA’s August 2004 Site Identification Questionnaire

 This questionnaire included a question (p. 22) to States on whether they allowed CBI claims on 

the Hazardous Waste Report. We assume that States which would not allow CBI claims for HW 

Report data would also not allow CBI claims for the similar waste data on the HW manifest.

 The following 20 States or territories responded to the questionnaire by indicating that they 

would not allow CBI claims in relation to their HW Reports:

o AL, VA, UT, AR, NM, NH, OK, NV, ID, NC, NJ, MI, PA, MD, CA, MT, ND, IL, GU

 12 States indicated they might recognize CBI claims for waste descriptions or other trade secret 

data. Two states (NY, CT) that answered “yes” to this survey on general HW Report practices 

stated that it would not recognize CBI claims for manifest data.

 9 States stated that they had had no recent experience with CBI claims being made with respect 

to the HW Report, and 7 States did not respond to the question.

3. State work group participants

 During the development of the e-Manifest Final Rule, these states indicated that they do not 

recognize CBI claims in processing requests for manifests or manifest data:
o CA, FL, MD, MI, PA, NJ, NY

4. E-Mail Contacts with States in July 2013

 We contacted MA, MN, RI, and VT during week of July 15th to see if we could determine their 

position on CBI treatment of manifests.

 Only MN and MA responded to date (July 19)

o MN confirmed that it treats all manifest data as public information - no CBI claims

o MA notified us that if CBI claim asserted (none recently), it would process the claim 

under its trade secret laws and withhold if confidentiality claim substantiated

CONCLUSION:

 Combining the information from the above sources, we believe that these 25 states’ practices or 

policies would preclude the recognition of CBI claims with respect to manifest data:

o AL, AR, CA, CT, FL, GU, ID, IL, MD, MI, MN, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, 

UT, VA, WA

o By extrapolating from data (2007 BR) showing tons of HW received in these states, we 

believe that these states account for > 50% of the HW manifests circulated in the U.S.